Preamble

The House met at Half-past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

PEOPLE'S DISPENSARY FOR SICK ANIMALS

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

SALFORD CORPORATION BILL

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Working Population

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Minister of Labour why the latest manpower returns show a rise to 23,146,000 in the total working population.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): A detailed explanation is given in an article entitled "New Series of Manpower Statistics" published on page 40 of the "Ministry of Labour Gazette" for February, 1949.

Sir W. Smithers: Does not this enormouse increase show the inefficiency of Government Departments; and will the right hon. Gentleman employ a chartered accountant engaged in free enterprise to be his statistician?

Mr. Isaacs: I think that the figures show the efficiency of the Government Department, and to employ another person from outside would swell the number of persons employed in the service.

Scotland

Mr. Mathers: asked the Minister of Labour how many men and women were registered at Bo'ness employment exchange as unemployed at a recent convenient date; and what were the numbers, actual or approximate, travelling from Bo'ness to work outside the burgh on the same date.

Mr. Isaacs: Twenty-one men and 29 women at 14th March. Statistics showing the numbers who travel from Bo'ness to work outside the area are not available.

Mr. Mathers: Will my right hon. Friend accept from me the fact that much larger numbers of workers than those he has given travel outside the burgh for work? Will he be kind enough to keep special watch on the employment position at Bo'ness in view of the possibility of developments taking place in the greatest seasonal trade in the port, that of pitwood handling?

Mr. Isaacs: Yes, we will keep watch on the position there, as we do in all areas. As to the numbers who travel outside the burgh for work, I must point out that we do not keep a record of them, but it is often a fact that men prefer to work outside their own area.

Mr. Mathers: They have no alternative.

Mr. William Ross: asked the Minister of Labour if he will give the figures relative to Ayrshire and Scotland of the number of people unemployed for at least six months; and how these figures compare with 1947 and 1948.

Mr. Isaacs: At 6th December, 1948, the latest date for which figures are available, the numbers were 657 in Ayrshire and 15,535 in Scotland. In March, 1948, the numbers were 738 for Ayrshire and 15,520 for Scotland; and in March, 1947, 929 for Ayrshire and 19,985 for Scotland.

Building Workers

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Minister of Labour what steps he intends taking to release men formerly employed in the building industry and now serving in His Majesty's Forces for work urgently required for housing people now living in overcrowded houses, and houses condemned as unfit for human habitation.

Mr. Isaacs: There are no arrangements for the early release of men in the Forces to take up civilian employment and an exception cannot be made in the case of men formerly employed in the building industry.

Mr. Hughes: Can my right hon. Friend tell us if it is his policy to give the Armed Forces priority over housing?

Mr. Isaacs: It means that I am carrying out the Act of Parliament.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that when an effort was made to get a bigger allocation of houses for Fife, into which many miners are coming from other areas, we were told that it could not be done because of the lack of labour? Will the Minister make a special effort to get the War Office to release men for building work?

Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir.

Mr. Shurmer: Does not my right hon. Friend think that the housing situation is so serious that the need for men for the building of houses is more important than the need for these men to be in the Army?

Mr. Isaacs: Parliament decided what classifications of workers were to be excluded and I am applying that decision.

Mr. Scollan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that priority industries, especially in Scotland, are languishing for lack of the necessary housing, and that this is the bottleneck which is holding up everything? In view of that fact could he not reconsider the whole matter?

Mr. McCorquodale: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the questions which have been asked by Members on his own side of the House do not quite tally with what the Minister of Health has recently been telling us about housing?

Mr. Dumpleton: asked the Minister of Labour how many building workers are registered as unemployed at the employment exchanges of St. Albans, Hatfield and Welwyn Garden City; and how many were registered at comparable dates in 1938 and 1937.

Mr. Isaacs: At St. Albans, four; at Hatfield, none; at Welwyn Garden City, four. In March, 1938, the numbers were 133 at St. Albans and 79 at Welwyn Garden City; and in March, 1937, 117 at St. Albans and 52 at Welwyn Garden City. There are no separate figures for those two years for Hatfield which was then included in the other two.

Mr. Dumpleton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Conservative propaganda is suggesting that, owing to Government policy, there are idle builders

in this district? Do not these figures show that to be completely false?

Mr. Isaacs: There is an old saying that figures cannot lie. I will not use the second half of that saying.

Brighton

Mr. William Teeling: asked the Minister of Labour what are the types of jobs which have 850 vacancies in Brighton which cannot be filled locally; why no suitable people can be found; and whether he proposes bringing in suitable people from outside.

Mr. Isaacs: Of the 850 vacancies which I mentioned in my reply of 22nd March over 200 have since been filled. Vacancies for which local labour cannot be found, but for which labour from other districts might be available, are circulated to other employment exchanges. The vacancies for men were mainly for skilled engineering and building and civil engineering workers. Those for women were mainly for hotel and catering, clerical and clothing workers and in private domestic service.

Mr. Teeling: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me why, if a fortnight ago 850 jobs were there and nobody could be found for them, he was then able to fill 200 of these vacancies?

Mr. Isaacs: That happens every week. At the moment the count is taken a certain number will be shown on the register. Probably that day or the next day, or during the following few days, those men are placed in work. That happens all the time.

Mr. Teeling: Will the right hon. Gentleman remember that the population of Brighton is about one-third of 1 per cent. of the population of the whole country, whereas the unemployment in Brighton now is something just over 1 per cent., or over four times more than it ought to be; and will he do much more to try to solve this problem?

Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir. If the unemployment in Brighton is somewhere about 1 per cent. it is less than the national average. It is mainly seasonal. The men and women are employed in domestic service.

Mr. Teeling: asked the Minister of Labour if he will give the number of


unemployed registered disabled persons in Brighton; what percentage this represents of the total number of registered disabled persons; and what special steps are being taken to introduce new industries into this area which would be specially suitable to provide additional jobs for the disabled.

Mr. Isaacs: Seven hundred and eight at 21st February, 1949, which represents about 12½ per cent. of the total number of registered disabled. In addition there are 64 severely disabled needing sheltered employment. I understand that the projected industrial developments include production of a light nature which should provide increased employment opportunities for the disabled.

Mr. Teeling: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether that 12 per cent. is, roughly speaking, the same all over the country or is it exceptional for Brighton?

Mr. Isaacs: I must admit that it is exceptional for Brighton. We are taking active steps in the matter. On the industrial estate one factory is already at work making electric lamps. Other products suitable for work of this kind is the manufacture of typewriting sundries, jigs and gauges, clothing and many types of electrical goods. When the industrial estate which is planned is completed, we expect to find employment for 1,200 men and women.

Tractor Workers, Coventry (Dismissal)

Mr. Edelman: asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been drawn to the mass dismissal of 1,700 tractor workers by the Standard Motor Company, Coventry; and what action he is taking to find them employment.

Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir. The employment exchanges through the normal machinery are assisting redundant workers who register to find suitable employment.

Mr. Edelman: Will my right hon. Friend say how many vacancies exist for these men in this district, and how soon he expects to find jobs for the men now redundant?

Mr. Isaacs: The work of finding new jobs for them is already in progress.

There are 250 workers actually registered. They were dismissed with a week's wages in lieu of notice, and up to Friday last 65 out of the 250 had already been placed. The vacancies in the area are: Coventry, 1,600; Birmingham, 4,104; Wolverhampton, 844.

Disabled Men, Newport

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will now state when the new factory for disabled men in Newport will be started; how many men will be employed and when it 'is likely to be available; and how many disabled men in Newport were receiving unemployment pay at the latest known date.

Mr. Isaacs: A suitable site has now been agreed and tenders for the erection of the factory will be invited as soon as plans adapted to the site conditions have been completed. Until then I cannot give the date when the work will be started. The factory will provide employment for 100 men. There are in Newport 282 unemployed registered disabled persons of whom 55 are considered to be in need of sheltered employment.

Mr. Freeman: Can my right hon. Friend say on what type of work these people will be employed in this factory?

Mr. Isaacs: Not without notice, but I will gladly inform my hon. Friend.

Registration for Employment Order

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Labour how many of the people registered under the Registration for Employment Order he has directed to any form of employment.

Mr. Isaacs: Seven thousand, five hundred and sixty-three persons who registered under the Order made in November, 1947, were placed in employment. The use of formal directions was found to be necessary only in one case.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on Thursday night his Parliamentary Secretary pointed out that it was a justification for the use of compulsory powers that he had registered 30,000 people? Does the right hon. Gentleman really regard as wise the registration of 30,000 people in order to direct one person?

Mr. Isaacs: It is quite easy to omit the essential part of the answer I have already given. One was directed; 7,563 accepted the employment offered. The number of registrations was 37,072 men and 58,893 women. I think a tribute must be paid to the people who did voluntarily come forward to register.

National Institute of Houseworkers

Sir John Mellor: asked the Minister of Labour what number of students during 1948 attended training centres established by the National Institute of Houseworkers; what was the average cost per student per month; and what was the total cost of the institute to public funds.

Mr. Isaacs: Two hundred and eighty-nine. The average cost per student per month was £27 for an adult and £23 for a younger girl. These figures include rental or equivalent capital charges, the cost of maintenance allowances, and in the great majority of cases board and lodging. The total cost of the Institute to public funds during 1948 was approximately £105,000, including approximately £41,000 on capital assets, mainly premises, and £31,000 running costs of the Institute's Headquarters.

Sir J. Mellor: As this institute was started in June, 1946, is not it time it showed better value for money?

Mr. Isaacs: We cannot get the finished products at the beginning of the course. We have to wait until they have finished training. I would emphasise that this institute is having the effect of raising the status of those employed in this kind of work. Instead of being what was commonly termed in the old days a "skivvy," they are coming out as people ready for employment which should be recognised as worthy of the highest possible regard.

Mr. Baldwin: Is the Minister aware that a cheaper and more efficient way of training these students would be to attach them to the household of a selected efficient housewife, when they would learn the practical household duties.

Mr. Isaacs: It is quite the contrary. It is because that kind of training was found to be insufficient that this institute was started.

Mrs. Middleton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is as important to train properly for housework, as for any other profession for which training is given by the Government?

Control of Engagement Order

Mr. J. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is satisfied that the Control of Engagement Order is in accord with the Declaration of Human Rights; and what steps he proposes to take to ensure this accord.

Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Article 23 of the Charter states that everyone has a right of free choice of employment and does that right hold good in the Control of Engagement Order?

Mr. Isaacs: If the hon. Member would read Article 29 (2) of the Declaration he will find there an explanation of this scheme; and it refers to the Charter requiring to meet the just requirements of morality, public order, and the general welfare—[HON. MEMBERS: "Under a Socialist Government."]—I know it makes hon. Members opposite laugh when we talk about the general welfare—public order and general welfare in a democratic society.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Article 23 is a categorical statement and there is no qualification in it whatever? Do the Government propose to hold to that statement?

Mr. Isaacs: My answer was a categorical statement, and it was, "Yes."

Mr. McCorquodale: Does not the Minister think it would be better to keep the Declaration in the spirit as well as in the letter?

Mr. Isaacs: That is exactly what this Order intends to do—it keeps it in the spirit and not in the letter.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: Are we then to understand that the right hon. Gentleman now admits that His Majesty's Government are breaking the letter of this international agreement?

Mr. Isaacs: If it is possible to twist what I have said in answer to a supplementary question — [Interruption]. If hon. Members say it is not, well and good. The answer on behalf of His Majesty's Government is that we intend to adhere to the intention and the purposes of this Order, and we do not consider that at the moment we are in any way deviating from it.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

National Health Service (Chemists)

Mr. Spence: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the continued delay in payments to chemists in Aberdeenshire under the National Health scheme, which are now in some cases six months overdue; and what steps he is taking to overcome this.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Woodburn): I regret that final settlements are outstanding, owing to shortage of staff for pricing prescriptions. Advances representing the whole of the estimated payments due to the end of 1948 have however been made, together with advances of roughly 80 per cent. for January and February. Discussions are taking place with representatives of the Scottish chemists about the adoption of new methods of pricing prescriptions, which would reduce delay in final settlement without requiring the employment of additional staff.

Mr. Spence: Would the right hon. Gentleman accept it from me that some chemists have not received payment at all and would he look into specific cases if I bring them to his notice?

Mr. Woodburn: Yes, Sir.

Clean Milk (Report)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish immediately the Report of the Philips Committee on Clean Milk, in order that its recommendations may be available for the Committee now considering the Milk (Special Designations) Bill.

Mr. Woodburn: This Report was published yesterday.

Mr. Hughes: Will the Minister explain why this Report has been held up for

eight months and why it has only been submitted after the Committee considering the Bill has concluded its deliberations; further, will he consider incorporating the provisions of this Report when we come to the Report stage of the Bill?

Mr. Woodburn: All these matters will be given consideration.

Housing

Mrs. Jean Mann: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that the grates and duct system in the Blackburn houses are not regarded as satisfactory; and if he will state the cost of this heating system.

Mr. Woodburn: There have been no complaints about the heating installation in the Blackburn two-storey house, but some tenants have expressed dissatisfaction with the grate installed in the aluminium bungalow. I have asked the Ministry of Fuel and Power to investigate this and will let my hon. Friend know the result. The cost of the system is estimated at £20.

Mrs. Mann: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the installation of the duct heating system in Blackburn houses will not be continued?

Mr. Woodburn: Of course, these houses are now completed. No more of this type are being made.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: In view of the complaints, of which the right hon. Gentleman is aware, about dampness in the aluminium houses in Fife, will he be good enough to send me a copy of the information which he proposes to send to the hon. Lady?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Woodburn: The hon. Lady has a Question down on that subject. It is usually considered improper to anticipate the next Question.

Mrs. Mann: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what complaints he has received regarding dampness and condensation in the Blackburn houses; and what steps are to be taken to deal with this trouble.

Mr. Woodburn: No complaints have been received about permanent aluminium


bungalows or about the permanent Blackburn two-storey house. There were some years ago spots of trouble over condensation in a few of the aluminium temporary houses and recently some more cases have arisen. My Department are at present considering what steps they should advise local authorities to take to put matters right.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Might I explain that I referred to aluminium houses on the last Question because the right hon. Gentleman referred to them in his answer? With regard to his last answer, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he undertook to make immediate inquiries into complaints in East Fife and that he has not carried out his obligation?

Mr. Woodburn: If the hon. Gentleman means that the inquiries have not yet been completed, that may be so, but I am certainly having inquiries carried out.

Mr. MacLeod: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the cost of the erection of Swedish houses in the Highlands generally, and in the county of Ross and Cromarty in particular.

Mr. Woodburn: The average tender price of the 1,000 Swedish houses is £2,030 per house. The average in the county of Ross and Cromarty including the burghs is £2,056.

Mr. MacLeod: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a private firm in Scotland is able to erect these houses at an all-in cost of £1,189, and how does he account for this extraordinary difference in price?

Mr. Woodburn: I saw that report in the Press and naturally I made inquiries into it. My Department have discussed with the firm which originally mentioned this figure whether it is applicable to Highland conditions. I understand that the firm have indicated that they take no responsibility for the way in which their quotation has been used by the Press or by local authorities. Their price relates to houses delivered at a Fife port and assembled within a radius of 40 miles in numbers of not less than 50 houses per site. In addition, the price excludes certain items. Incidentally, the firm estimate their total capacity of Swedish houses at some 100 per annum and, in discussion with my Department, they agreed that their price for building under the con-

ditions in which the Highland tenders were submitted, would not differ substantially from the figures which have been quoted to local authorities.

Mr. McKinlay: Will my right hon. Friend clear up one point? Is this the cost of assembly, including roads and services, or is it the cost of a completed house?

Mr. Woodburn: The price mentioned by the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. MacLeod) excludes, for instance, travelling time allowance, fares, transport, subsistence, overtime, guaranteed time, messing, drains, manholes, clothes poles and a whole series of other items.

Mr. McKinlay: Might I have an answer to my question? Is this the cost of assembly or is it the cost of the completed house?

Mr. Woodburn: It is the cost of the house and of some parts of the assembly.

Analgesia

Lady Tweedsmuir: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many women received analgesia in childbirth in their own homes in the city and county of Aberdeenshire, respectively, in the years 1947 and 1948, who were attended by midwives only.

Mr. Woodburn: No apparatus was available in Aberdeen City in either of these two years. Four sets were available in the county towards the end of 1948 and 12 women received analgesia when attended by midwives alone in their own homes.

Lady Tweedsmuir: Could the right hon. Gentleman give the percentage for the county, compared with the total births at home during these years?

Mr. Woodburn: They were very small because this only became available at the tail end of 1948 and, of course, the births were taking place throughout the year.

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: Is not this a disgracefully low average; and might I ask the right hon. Gentleman what orders he has issued to the local health authorities on this matter, and under what section of what Act he has issued those orders?

Mr. Woodburn: If the hon. Gentleman knew Scottish health authorities, he would know that issuing orders was not the way to get their co-operation. A second point is that Aberdeen refrained from purchasing this apparatus in the belief that a more efficient or a more economical apparatus was coming along shortly—and that is quite a good Aberdeen reason.

Mrs. Mann: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the standards set under the Scottish Midwifery Act, which are very much higher than those in England, will be adhered to; that the mothers of Scotland will not have any class distinction; and that services suitable for hon. Members opposite and their wives shall not be lowered for the women of Scotland?

Lady Tweedsmuir: Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether, in fact, he has power to impose a duty upon local health authorities in Scotland?

Mr. Woodburn: Aberdeen is now awaiting delivery of the apparatus.

Commander Galbraith: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question whether he has power to impose a duty on a local authority?

Mr. Speaker: The original Question only asked how many women received analgesia. It said nothing about powers.

Weaving Classes, Kilmarnock

Mr. William Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many adult education classes on textiles are being held in Kilmarnock; and how many are attending these classes.

Mr. Woodburn: Two classes in weaving are held in Kilmarnock Technical School on Saturday mornings. The session extends over 25 weeks and the total number attending these classes this session is 16.

Crafts Centre (Membership)

Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a further statement on the establishment of a crafts centre for Scotland and his recognition of such a centre for the purposes of the scheme for the

relief from Purchase Tax introduced last July.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. John Edwards): As I stated in my reply to a question by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir B. Neven-Spence) on 8th February, my right hon. Friend will be prepared to consider, in consultation with my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, any suggestions which may be made in connection with the establishment of a crafts centre for Scotland. So far no such suggestions have reached us.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that Scottish craftsmen are not accepted for membership of the Crafts Centre of Great Britain, and are, therefore, precluded from obtaining relief from Purchase Tax under the scheme introduced in July, 1948; and what steps he intends to take to remedy this injustice.

Mr. J. Edwards: I am informed that membership of the Crafts Centre of Great Britain is open to Scottish craftsmen on the same terms as to those living elsewhere in the United Kingdom. It is also open to any craftsmen, without becoming a member of the Crafts Centre, to apply for relief under the scheme, details of which were announced in July, 1948.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: If I send the hon. Gentleman details, will he investigate a case of a constituent of mine, a silversmith, who has tried un-successfully for four months to become a member of the Crafts Centre of Great Britain>

Mr. Edwards: I shall be happy to look into any case the hon. and gallant Gentleman sends me.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF PENSIONS

Staff

Mr. Molson: asked the Minister of Pensions why, when the expenditure of his Department is declining, there has been an increase of 33 in the staff between 1st October, 1948, and 1st January, 1949.

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Marquand): The recent increase of 33 in total staff resulted from the recruitment of additional nurses and orderlies for the Ministry hospitals, which are still not up to full strength. At the same time there was a small reduction in non-hospital staff, notwithstanding that since 1st July last I have undertaken certain work for the National Health Service as the agent of my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Health. This reduction followed a 10 per cent. reduction of non-hospital staff in the preceding two years.

Welfare Service

Mr. Symonds: asked the Minster of Pension whether he has considered the suggestion of the hon. Member for Cambridge that me whose pensions are administered direct by a Service Department should have the benefits of his welfare service; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Marquand: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friends the Service Ministers welcomed the suggestion made by my hon. Friend. Henceforward the War Pensions Welfare Service will be available to peace-time disablement pensioners. Explanatory leaflets will be issued by my right hon. Friends the Service Ministers which will include an invitation to these pensioners to consult the appropriate War Pensions welfare officer if they require help or advice.

Mr. Symonds: In thanking my right hon. Friend for this welcome announcement, might I ask if he expects that the present number of welfare officers will be able to cope with the additional work, or does the anticipate that an increase in their numbers will follow?

Mr. Marquand: It is a little hard to say in advance. We do not quite know what the demand from these pensioners will be. At the moment the number of welfare officers is adequate for the task they have before them.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Ambushed Soldiers, Malaya

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will made a statement regarding 22204837 Gunner

C. M. Bailey, who was ambushed, together with three other young soldiers, and killed by Communists near Mentakab, Malaya, on 19th January last.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Shinwell): This soldier and three other gunners were killed on the afternoon of 19th January while on military duty in aid of the civil power. A party of civil officials and police, with a detachment of soldiers as escort, was travelling in two vehicles along a road which, in the area mentioned in the Question, passes through thick jungle. The vehicles were travelling together but became separated, and the second vehicle was ambushed by bandits as it neared a road bend. Their opening bursts of fire knocked out the driver and overturned the vehicle. The bandits then murdered all the occupants, except one seriously wounded civilian, who was left for dead. After searching the bodies, stealing all available weapons and setting fire to the vehicle, the bandits withdrew.
I should like to take this opportunity of expressing my sympathy with the families of the victims of this brutal outrage.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this 19-year-old soldier joined up on 5th May last year, that he had had only five months' training, had his embarkation leave in September, embarked for Singapore on 5th October and arrived there on 4th November; that, in a matter of a week or 10 days, he was actually taking part in jungle warfare; and does he really consider that this boy had had adequate training for such an operation?

Mr. Shinwell: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is completely misinformed.—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, completely misinformed. The facts are as follow. The four soldiers concerned were all Regulars. Two of them had had six months' service before disembarkation in Malaya and a further two and a half months' and nine months', respectively, since disembarkation. Of the remaining two, one who was 23 had had four and a half years before disembarkation and a further two and a half months in Malaya, and the other, who was 19½, had 13 months' service before disembarkation and another 13 months after.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the


vehicle to which he refers was a proper vehicle for carrying out these duties, and whether there is a shortage of armoured and protected vehicles in Malaya at present?

Mr. Shinwell: I should require notice of that question.

Air-Commodore Harvey: On a point of Order. As I have letters from Gunner Bailey himself to his parents and grandfather, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter at the earliest opportunity on the Motion for the Adjournment, in order to bring the facts to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman and the House.

Customs Dues (Currency)

Mr. Erroll: asked the Secretary of State for War what arrangements are made to provide Service men returning from overseas with sufficient British currency to pay Customs and Excise dues for which they may be liable on disembarkation.

Mr. Shinwell: Service men returning from overseas are provided with sterling in exchange for foreign currency which they have received as pay and allowances, and in some cases they receive advances of pay in sterling en route. They can use this sterling to pay the dues for which they are liable.

Mr. Erroll: As in many cases the pay departments concerned are so far in arrears that they are not able to provide the necessary sterling, will the Minister arrange for these accounts to be kept up to date?

Mr. Shinwell: If the hon. Gentleman can give a specific instance where the accounts are not kept up to date, I should be obliged if he would give me the information before making allegations of that kind.

Mr. Erroll: I have already done so.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Extended Service

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for War what arrangements are made to enable time-expired

warrant officers and senior noncommissioned officers to extend their period of service in suitable cases.

Mr. Shinwell: Soldiers who have completed 22 years' Colour service may be allowed to continue to serve for a year at a time beyond 22 years, provided that there is a vacancy, and that they are medically fit and recommended. Subject to the same conditions, warrant officers Class I may be allowed to extend their service beyond 22 years for as long as is necessary to allow them to complete five years in the rank of warrant officer I.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is it not a fact that many of these men with long experience are at present being denied the opportunity of carrying on with their service?

Mr. Shinwell: As it happens, there is a surplus of warrant officers and senior N.C.O.s in infantry, and we must have regard, all other things being equal, to the need for promotion.

Pay Department, Canterbury

Mr. Baker White: asked the Secretary of State for War why ex-Service men of the 1914–18 war, employed in the pay department at Canterbury Barracks, have been down-graded from T.C. Grade II to T.C. Grade III, the down-grading becoming effective on the same day as their dismissal.

Mr. Shinwell: Any temporary clerk who becomes redundant in a grade higher than the basic grade III is allowed to revert to any lower grade from which he has been promoted, so that he can be given further employment in the lower grade, if there are vacancies. If he does not want to revert, he can be discharged in the higher grade. The clerks referred to in the Question were surplus in both Grades II and III. There was no point, in this case, in the down-grading, and instructions have been issued that the clerks in question should be discharged as Grade II clerks.

No. 1 Dress

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will give an approximate estimate at present prices of the cost of supplying blue uniform to the Army.

Mr. Shinwell: As No. 1 dress for other ranks is not in production, it is not possible to give any accurate indication of what the cost at the present time might be. It is, however, estimated that the cost of providing No. 1 dress for other ranks of the active Army would amount very approximately to rather more than £4 million in the first year and to about £3 million in succeeding years.

Mr. Hughes: In view of the high cost of the blue, is the Minister considering going back to red?

War Injuries (Compensation Scheme)

Lord Willoughby de Eresby: asked the Secretary of State for War when he will be able to announce the rates and conditions of the new scheme, which is to take the place of the scheme, framed under the Injuries in War (Compensation) Act, 1914, and which covers Women's Auxiliary Air Corps and others who were disabled while serving abroad as civilians in the 1914–18 war.

Mr. Shinwell: This scheme is in an advanced state of preparation. I cannot say exactly when details will be announced, but I hope it may be possible to do this during the next few weeks. In the meantime, however, persons affected by it have been given the revised rates of compensation which are embodied in the scheme.

Lord Willoughby de Eresby: When this scheme is announced, will it cover members of the Auxiliary Nursing Yeomanry who were wounded on active service in the 1914–18 war?

Mr. Shinwell: Yes, I rather think so, but perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to look into the matter.

War Graves, Italy (Relatives' Visits)

Mr. Dumpleton: asked the Secretary of State for War whether visits to war graves in Italy can now be arranged.

Mr. Shinwell: Provisional arrangements have been made to extend to Italy the scheme for helping relatives to visit war graves in France, Belgium and Holland, which I announced in reply to

a Question by the hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield (General Sir G. Jeffreys) on 13th April, 1948. I will, with permission, circulate details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Dumpleton: Can my right hon. Friend say how this information will be made available? Will it be given direct to the relatives concerned or not?

Mr. Shinwell: I think my hon. Friend had better see the full reply and the details which I am providing in the OFFICIAL REPORT, but, at the start, the matter will rest with the British Legion, who have voluntarily offered their services.
Following are the details:
The British Legion have arranged for parties of 24 to fly to Italy and Sicily and back in specially chartered aircraft. They are now ready to receive applications, which should be submitted eight weeks in advance of the intended visit. It is hoped to continue these visits throughout the summer, except that they will not be arranged to Sicily in July and August, owing to the excessive heat in those months. It should be realised that in a number of cemeteries the erection of headstones and other structural work will still be in progress.
Special arrangements will be made for those relatives who do not wish to fly, but surface travel to Italy under this scheme presents many difficulties. Application to travel by surface route may, however, now be submitted to any of the five voluntary organisations handling the scheme. The British Legion do not expect to be able to make arrangements for surface travel before 1st October, 1949, and even then visits will be limited to cemeteries north of Bologna.
It is unlikely that visits under this scheme to war graves in Italy will be possible in 1950, as it will be a Holy Year and accommodation will therefore be extremely difficult to obtain.

Oral Answers to Questions — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING

Development Charge (Charities)

Mr. Sidney Shephard: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning if he will exempt from development charges land acquired or to be acquired


by charitable organisations for the purpose of building homes for the aged.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning (Mr. King): No, Sir. A charity holding land on 1st July, 1948, for the purpose of building homes for the aged can secure exemption from charge under Section 85 (5) of the Act. Land purchased after that date for that purpose should be acquired at existing use value and with development charge should cost no more than it would have done had the Act not been passed.

Mr. Shephard: Is the Minister aware that in many cases, this development charge is both unfair and onerous, and will he make exceptions in the case of these charitable organisations on land which they may purchase in future?

Mr. King: No, Sir. If the concession which the hon. Gentleman has in mind were made, it would benefit not the charity, but the seller of the land, who would obtain more for it than he ought to obtain.

Premises, Plymouth (Business Use)

Mrs. Middleton: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning, whether he will make a statement concerning the decision, under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, not to allow Mr. Foxford, of 48, Bernice Terrace, Plymouth, to carry on his business as a snobber in the garage adjoining his property; and what alternative accommodation has been offered to this man for the purposes of his business.

Mr. King: I understand that Mr. Fox-ford is carrying on a business without having obtained planning permission in an area which is allocated for residential purposes. The City Council accordingly have decided to take action under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, to stop this contravening use. However, in order to enable Mr. Foxford to find suitable accommodation in a business area, the City Council propose to suspend any formal action for a year. Mr. Foxford's solicitors have been so informed.

Mrs. Middleton: Has my hon. Friend seen the rather garbled account of this incident which appeared in the "Evening Standard" of 16th March last in an article

contributed by the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown), and has his Department taken any steps to correct the misunderstandings that have been caused by the publication of the article? If not, is anything going to be done about it?

Mr. King: I have seen the article in question. The Public Relations Officer of my Ministry wrote to the paper to correct a misstatement in it, and a portion of what he wrote appeared in the paper.

Mr. W. J. Brown: Arising out of that supplementary question, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that there was not a single statement contained in the article referred to which had not been published as a news item in the "News Chronicle" of 8th March, to which there had been no correction issued by his Department; and may I ask him what his Public Relations Officer was doing?

Mr. King: It is apparent that we cannot be wholly aware of all statements published throughout the Press, and that, if we were to contradict every false statement that appeared in the Press, we should have to be busier than it is, in fact, possible to be. But we did make a point of correcting a gross misstatement in the paper in question.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Was my hon. Friend aware before this, that the "Evening Standard" relied for its news service on the "News Chronicle"?

Building Land (Leaflets)

Mr. Skinnard: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning what leaflets of advice or instruction issued by his Department are available to people who own, or are contemplating buying, plots of land for building purposes; what the reference numbers of such leaflets are; and where they may be obtained.

Mr. King: With permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of leaflets which have been issued in this connection by my Department and the Central Land Board, and indicating where they may be obtained.

Mr. Skinnard: Is the Minister aware of the necessity for making it widely known where these leaflets can be obtained because, at the moment, there is a considerable amount of misapprehension as to rules in connection with the Town and Country Planning Act?

Mr. King: I am aware of that fact. There are two forms of leaflets, some issued by our Ministry and some issued by the Central Land Board itself. But, broadly, they are free, and can be obtained from the Central Land Board, the Ministry of Town and Country Planning or local authorities.

Following is the list:

The Ministry of Town and Country Planning have issued leaflets entitled:

1. The Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. Notes for the guidance of buyers and sellers of land for development purposes in the period between the passing of the Act and the Appointed Day.
2. P.R.2. The Town and Country Planning Act, 1947—Its effect on private developers and landowners.
3. P.R.3. The Town and Country Planning Act, 1947—Claims for exemption from Development Charge by owners of land ripe for development.
4. P.R.4. The Town and Country Planning Act, 1947—Land held for charitable purposes.

All these leaflets are free and can be got from the Ministry.

The Central Land Board have issued leaflets entitled:

1. House 1. Advice on buying and selling a site for building a house.
2. House 2. Payments and Development Charges on single house plots owned on or before 1st July, 1948.
3. Explanatory Pamphlet on Payments in respect of depreciation of Land Values. (Form S.I.A.).
4. Explanatory Pamphlet on Development Charge. (Form D.1.A.).

All these leaflets are free and can be got from the Central Land Board, the Ministry or local authorities.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL INSURANCE

Voluntary Contributors (Married Women)

Lady Tweedsmuir: asked the Minister of National Insurance whether he will permit married women under 60 to contribute voluntarily to the National Insurance scheme, when their husbands are over 65.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Insurance (Mr. Steele): I would refer the noble Lady to the reply given to the noble Lady the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Viscountess Davidson) on 22nd February a copy of which I am sending her.

Lady Tweedsmuir: Is the Minister aware that, while this is a transitional stage, nevertheless great hardship is caused to widows who have to start paying insurance just at a time when they are less able to do so than when their husbands are alive?

Mr. Steele: This Question refers to married women, and not to widows. So far as widows and others are concerned, if they do not come within the scheme, we have made provision under the National Assistance Act to cover any case of hardship.

Lady Tweedsmuir: Perhaps I did not make myself clear. Is the Minister aware that I was referring to women who are younger than their husbands and who want to contribute voluntarily while their husbands are alive, because, if they are not allowed to do so until they become widows, it means that they have to start contributing at a time when they can least afford it?

Mr. Steele: The question of allowing these women to come in voluntarily has been discussed on many occasions in this House. The fact is that we cannot possibly allow a certain section of married women to become voluntary contributors because it would involve a very heavy additional burden on the fund.

Self-Employed Persons

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of National Insurance whether he will consider introducing legislation whereby a self-employed person may be placed in a position which will enable that person to obtain an increased rate of benefit in case of accident similar to that receivable by an employee.

Mr. Steele: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on this point to the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) on 3rd March last, a copy of which I am sending him.

Mr. Janner: Does not my hon. Friend think that this position discloses a very serious flaw in so far as the provisions of the Act are concerned, particularly in view of the fact that a self-employed person may be maimed for life without having any opportunity of getting what an employee would get; and is there any possibility of reconsidering the position


with a view to correcting the situation which at present exists?

Mr. Steele: The fact is that this matter was discussed during the Committee stage of the Bill. At that time, my right hon. Friend said that he was prepared to receive representations from any organisations of self-employed people on the matter, but no organisation has made any such representation. In fact, one particular organisation, after considering the matter, decided not to press the point.

Oral Answers to Questions — OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

Brigadier Rayner: asked the Prime Minister what are the categories of public office which require the taking of the Oath of Allegiance; and whether he will examine the desirability of extending these categories and also of instituting the taking of the Oath by candidates competing to enter such office.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): Ministers of the Crown, Privy Councillors, certain high officers of State, Members of both Houses of Parliament, judicial officers, members of the clergy and members of the Armed Forces are required by statute to take the Oath of Allegiance. I am aware of no need for extending these categories.

Brigadier Rayner: In view of the fact that we harbour in this country a considerable number of Communists, declared and undeclared, many of whom on their own showing are potential traitors, would it not be advisable to make the taking of the Oath of Allegiance a more general qualification for other appointments under the Crown?

The Prime Minister: I should not have thought that a person who was preparing to engage in treason would boggle at an oath or two.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Prime Minister aware that an oath would make very little difference to one who was a potential traitor; and could he say whether there is an oath of allegiance for the Grand National, and why Russian Hero was not "purged" before the race started.

Mr. W. J. Brown: Is the Prime Minister aware that 40 yeas ago the Oath

of Allegiance was even exacted from junior civil servants, the lower ranges of civil servants; and can he say why it has fallen into disuse since then? Does not he think it would be a good plan to re-impose it?

The Prime Minister: I understand that the requirement that civil servants should take the Oath of Allegiance was imposed under Defence Regulations, and was allowed to lapse in 1921. I can see no reason why it should be reimposed; I do not think there is any special desirability in the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — VEGETABLE IMPORTS (POLICY)

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Prime Minister if he is aware of the dissatisfaction amongst home growers of vegetables at the lack of co-ordination between the Ministers of Agriculture and Food in relation to imports from abroad; and what steps he is taking to bring about closer liaison between the two Ministries.

The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Gooch) and to the one which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries gave to the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) yesterday.

Brigadier Medlicott: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those answers were far from reassuring to the horticulturists, and will he, as between the two Ministries, give us an assurance that he will give whatever support is necessary to the Minister of Agriculture so that proper protection and encouragement can be given to the home producer?

The Prime Minister: As I explained in my reply, one has to bear in mind the rights of producers and consumers, and, therefore, I should not be prepared to say that, regardless of any reason, I should come down in favour of one Minister against another.

Earl Winterton: Will the right hon. Gentleman give very sympathetic personal consideration to this matter in view of the fact that thousands of pounds are going to be lost by producers in the South of England at any rate, that it is


likely to lead to serious unemployment, and that many of the men will be ruined by the operation of the scheme?

The Prime Minister: I have given careful consideration to that. There is no scheme which would ruin them.

Mr. Baldwin: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on Monday he stated that in order to get certain goods we have to import other things which we do not want, and that the horticultural industry, because of that answer, feel that they are being used as a pawn in the game?

The Prime Minister: Oh, no, they are not. It applies to numbers of industries in matters of trade regulations. The horticultural industry are not being made a pawn in the game.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Postal Packets (Monetary Contents)

Mr. Erroll: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many postal packets for overseas addresses have been intercepted which consisted of cloth registered envelopes containing money or postal orders not being deliberately concealed; and in how many cases were the monetary contents wholly or partly confiscated.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Stafford Cripps): I regret that separate information relating to interceptions of currency in cloth registered envelopes is not available.

Mr. Erroll: Does the Minister realise that where such money is exported in cloth registered envelopes, there is no attempt at concealment, and that his arbitrarily imposed fine of confiscation is wholly inappropriate to the trivial nature of the offence?

Sir S. Cripps: Sometimes the best way of concealing a thing is to take the obvious way of doing it.

Purchase Tax

Sir Wavell Wakefield: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take alleviating action to allow mixtures of substances scheduled under Head II or Head III of the Purchase Tax (No. 5) Order, 1948, and substances which are the subject of monographs in the British

Pharmacopoeia and the British Pharmaceutical Codex to be sold free of Purchase Tax.

Sir S. Cripps: The Purchase Tax (No. 5) Order, 1948, covers substances of a character rather different from the others mentioned. It is, therefore, difficult to see where acceptance of this proposal would lead us. Perhaps the hon. Member would let me have particulars of the mixtures he has in mind, and say what they are used for.

Mr. M. Philips Price: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why aluminium hydroxide has been exempted from Purchase Tax under Purchase Tax (No. 5) Order, 1948, and can be sold free of such tax even under a brand name and when made up for oral administration, whilst other antacids, equally approved by medical opinion, such as magnesium trisilicate and magnesium hydroxide, are subject to Purchase Tax when sold under such conditions; and what is the machinery by which anomalies of this kind can be reconsidered.

Sir S. Cripps: The trade organisation most concerned has already been informed that magnesium trisilicate and magnesium hydroxide will be considered when the next Treasury Order exempting medicines is being prepared.

Mr. Hardy: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that food-shops in Salford and other towns are compelled to have a sufficient supply of hot water available under Section 13 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938; and if he will therefore remove the Purchase Tax from the geysers required to provide hot water.

Sir S. Cripps: My hon. Friend will not expect me to anticipate my Budget Statement.

Mr. Erroll: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman at least allow suitable exemption where hot water heaters have been properly modified?

Sir S. Cripps: The hon. Member will still not expect me to anticipate my Budget Statement.

Customs and Excise (Legal Judgment)

Sir John Mellor: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered the observations of Mr. Justice


Vaisey on 16th March in Sebel Products Limited v. Commissioners of Customs and Excise; and if he will indicate his future policy with regard to the retention by the Crown of tax paid under mistake of law.

Sir S. Cripps: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Ivor Thomas) on Monday, 21st March.

Sir J. Mellor: As the Prime Minister then said that the matter was under consideration, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say when a decision is likely to be reached; and will he agree that, in view of the increasing complications of the law, this is a matter of increasing importance?

Sir S. Cripps: I am afraid I cannot say when a conclusion will be reached; I can only say that the matter is still under consideration.

Mr. Wilson Harris: Is it not a fact that a mistake in law was first made by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise and that the firm only assented to it under protest, and is this not a thoroughly discreditable piece of work of which the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not be guilty in his private life?

Sir S. Cripps: I do not think it is at all a discreditable piece of work. I think it arose out of a desire to arrive at an accurate conclusion in the matter.

Economic Survey (Misprint)

Mr. Gammans: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that in column 3, table 22, on page 37 of the Economic Survey for 1949, the items do not in fact add up to the total given; whether it is the items which are wrong or the total which is inaccurate; and, as the difference is £900 million, what steps are being taken to make the actual figures known.

Sir S. Cripps: Yes, Sir. The figure of 2,890 in column 3 of Table 22 should read 1,990. A correction was issued in the "Board of Trade Journal" dated 19th March; and a corrigendum slip has now been printed and is available

in the Vote Office today. The Press were informed of the misprint at the time of publication.

Mr. Gammans: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether this misprint was discovered by the Treasury or by the public? Would it not have been better for these items to have been set out separately instead of being lumped together, as they are in this book?

Sir S. Cripps: No. On the last part of the question, we thought it was more convenient, on the whole, to do it in the form in which it has been done. Obviously the misprint was discovered by the Treasury because the Press were informed at the time of publication.

Public Appointments (Selection)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the recent letter from the Treasury to the Bank of England asking for the names of persons in the City willing to be considered for appointments in socialised industries was sent with his approval.

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he authorised the letter which was sent recently by the Treasury to various institutions in the City, asking for names to be given of any young men who might be willing to serve on Royal Commissions, committees or public boards; what is the list of institutions to which this letter was sent; what methods of selection are used to decide what are suitable institutions to which to send such letters or to ensure the suitability of the names submitted; how many replies have been received; and what is the number of names put forward.

Sir S. Cripps: The request to which these Questions refer was one for names of persons thought suitable (not of persons willing to be considered) for important public work of all kinds, including service on advisory committees and the like, and had no particular reference to socialised industries. The arrangements for improving His Majesty's Government's lists of such persons—of which this request was a part—are necessarily of an informal and confidential nature, but I


can assure the House that they have my entire approval.

Mr. Keeling: Will the Chancellor say whether he expects that this appeal, which was circulated through the City by the Bank of England, will be successful in rescuing these organisations, which certainly included the socialised industries, from their difficulties about directing and advisory staff?

Sir S. Cripps: There is no question about it being successful for any such purpose. It has long been the custom to keep a list of such persons at the Treasury and from time to time it is necessary to renew it.

Mr. Cooper: In view of the overwhelming importance to the Government of men being chosen for public posts entirely on merit and suitability for the job which is vacant at the time, would the Chancellor give consideration to the adoption of some selection procedure which is clearly recognised and which is most likely to throw up the most suitable man when the occasion demands?

Sir S. Cripps: The way in which people are selected for different posts differs according to the post. The responsible Minister is responsible for the selection.

Fire Service Fees, Scotland (Tax)

Mr. Spence: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that part-time retained firemen in Scotland are being taxed retrospectively on fees earned during the lifetime of the National Fire Service; and if he will waive the accrued tax in these cases.

Sir S. Cripps: If the hon. Member will let me have particulars of the cases he has in mind I will make inquiries, but I cannot waive tax that is properly payable.

Mr. Spence: While thanking the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his reply, may I ask him if he is aware that these were sums of money paid to the men which they earned while actually firefighting? On those grounds alone would he reconsider the matter?

Sir S. Cripps: If the hon. Member will let me have the particulars of any case which he has in mind I will make inquiries.

Canada (Trade)

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now consider modifying his fiscal policy so as to ensure that Canada is not shut out from the sterling market areas, with special regard to the difficulties which exist at the present time.

Sir S. Cripps: We are making a sustained effort to increase our trade with Canada precisely in order that we may have the means to pay for Canadian goods which we greatly desire to import. In this connection it is hoped that the limited concessions recently made by the British West Indies the Bahamas and Bermuda in regard to hard currency imports will have proved of benefit to Canada.

Mr. De la Bère: Is the Chancellor aware of increasing Canadian anxiety about the trade position? Why is it that the contract formerly placed with Canada for timber, bacon, apples and newsprint has been given to Iron Curtain countries?

Sir S. Cripps: I think I appreciate the object of the hon. Member's supplementary question. The reason why we cannot buy all the things we should like from Canada is because we have not got the dollars.

Mr. De la Bère: The right hon. and learned Member is not trying very hard.

Confiscated Food (Disposal)

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how many parcels of meat have been confiscated by officials of the customs at sea and airports since 1st January, 1949; what was their total weight; and what happens to them.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I assume the hon. Member is referring to fresh meat. Imports of this from the Continent are prohibited under the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, in the interests of animal health, and parcels seized in the Customs are destroyed. I regret that the statistical information asked for is not readily available.

Sir W. Smithers: May I ask the Financial Secretary why he assumes anything at all? I asked a straight Question. May I also ask him, in view of the disastrous results of the policy of the


Minister of Food, whether it is in any way an encouragement to our generous friends overseas that these food parcels should be confiscated?

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that, on 17th March, 1949, Miss Winifred Rowley, of Vicars Moore Lane, Winchmore Hill, Middlesex, brought with her from France a 20-1b. cured ham, wrapped in cellophane paper and that, on arrival at the Customs sheds at Victoria Station, she declared the ham and a Customs officer, without unwrapping the paper, threw it into a large dustbin to join pounds of other food; and if he will make a statement as to the reason for this procedure.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The importation from the Continent of all uncooked meat and of cured meat unaccompanied by an official certificate is prohibited under the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894. Miss Rowley's ham was seized under this prohibition and destroyed under instructions issued by the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. Since the date of this incident, the Ministry have agreed that a certificate may be dispensed with for small private importations of fully-cured bacon or ham.

Sir W. Smithers: Is the Financial Secretary aware that cured and smoked ham are immune? In view of the change of policy may I ask him whether Miss Rowley will be reimbursed? Is he further aware that if I had my way I should put the Ministry of Food into the dustbin?

Mr. Baldwin: Is the Financial Secretary aware that the farming industry trusts that he will continue to destroy meat from the Continent, where foot-and-mouth disease is rife?

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that Miss Rowley made a mistake by bringing in this ham in a red wrapper?

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Non-industrial Staffs

Mr. J. Langford-Holt: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what was the total number of non-industrial civil servants employed in all Departments on full-time duties on 1st January, 1949, and 1st September, 1939.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): There were 684,748 at 1st January, 1949 and 374,301 at 1st April, 1939. Figures for 1st September, 1939, are not available.

Staff Reductions

Mr. Cooper: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what policy is followed when reductions in the staff of the Ministries are made, due to redundancies occurring through the recent elimination of controls; and whether the older temporary civil servants of 55 years of age and over are in all cases the first to be dismissed.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Reductions in staff on account of redundancy are made in accordance with a National Whitley Council agreement of 1945. The agreement does not prescribe special treatment for those of 55 years of age and over, who are, therefore, not necessarily the first to go.

Mr. Cooper: While appreciating that the question of efficiency should be a first consideration, may I ask the Financial Secretary if he can give any assurance that younger temporary civil servants are not retained in the Service, in comparison with older civil servants, since the younger men in most cases can more readily find alternative employment in productive industry?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I have answered the Question. I have indicated that those of 55 years of age and over are not necessarily the first to go.

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what steps are being taken to find employment for those civil servants rendered redundant as a result of the removal of certain controls; and if he will give an assurance that they will be offered employment in productive industry and not transferred to other Government Departments.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Temporary civil servants who become redundant are informed that if they require further employment they should register with the Ministry of Labour and National Service. The Ministry endeavours to place those who register in suitable essential work which includes any fresh vacancies for temporary staff in Government Departments.

COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS' MEETING

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I desire, with Mr. Speaker's permission, to make a statement. Commonwealth Prime Ministers will meet in London on 21st April. The Prime Ministers of Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Pakistan and Ceylon will be able to attend. The Prime Minister of Canada is doubtful whether he will be able to come himself, but if not Mr. Pearson, Secretary of State for External Affairs, will represent Canada.
Matters not fully discussed at the October meetings of Prime Ministers, involving certain constitutional questions, will be considered at a short series of private meetings. They are expected to last a week.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: I am sure the whole House will be glad to hear that so many Commonwealth Prime Ministers have been able to come to this meeting, and I am sure the House will wish a successful outcome to their talks. May I ask the Prime Minister whether, at the conclusion of the talks, a full statement will be made to this House, and whether, if any major decisions are taken, a full opportunity will be given to debate them?

The Prime Minister: Yes, certainly. I cannot state exactly what the nature of

the statement will be. It will arise naturally out of the outcome of the talks. However, I shall certainly see that this House is kept informed of anything that ought to be brought before it.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of an opportunity being given to Members of all parties to meet these statesmen informally, during the course of the talks?

The Prime Minister: I should like to consider that, but I have had messages from the Prime Ministers that, in view of the shortness of the time they will be over here, and the amount of work to be done, they do not wish to have very extensive hospitality offered to them.

Mr. Gammans: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is proposed to discuss at this conference the growth of Communism in Asia, and the general deterioration in the situation in certain parts of Asia?

The Prime Minister: I should prefer not to add anything to the statement that I have made.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Clauses 1, 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Clause 4.—(POWER TO KEEP PERSONS SENTENCED TO DETENTION UNDER ARMY ACT IN AIR FORCE CUSTODY, AND CORRESPONDING PROVISION FOR AIR FORCE ACT.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

3.34 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I do not think we should proceed with this Clause until we have had some clear explanation from the Ministers concerned of what it means. I should like to know exactly in what conditions prisoners of either the Army or the Air Force, sentenced by courts martial to terms of detention, are to be treated under this Bill. I should like to have a full explanation of what this means and the purposes of this Clause. It is especially essential to ask these questions in view of the fact that young women who are serving in the women's Services are now liable to be court martialled in precisely the same way as men and to be sent to terms of detention. Last year I asked a similar question when we were discussing the Army and Air Force (Women's Service) Bill. I put this question to the Secretary of State for War:
Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that a court martial will be able to send a woman to a military prison?
The Secretary of State replied:
Women will be liable to detention. Let us be quite clear about the definition of detention. We are concerning ourselves now, and have been for some time, with this matter, and we are providing what are called 'corrective establishments.'"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th February, 1948; Vol. 446, c. 2078.]
I presume corrective establishments are contemplated in this Clause of the Bill, and I should like the Ministers concerned to give us some further information as to the routine and as to what is likely to happen to persons sentenced to corrective establishments, or to detention, or whatever else is proposed in the Bill.

The Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but this is a limited Clause, and the only question is whether those sentenced to detention under the Army Act may be detained in Air Force custody and similarly whether those sentenced under the Air Force Act may be kept in military custody. I do not think the other questions the hon. Gentleman is discussing arise.

Mr. Hughes: With respect, Major Milner, my point is that before we are in a position to know what this means we must have some statement from one of the Ministers on what is likely to be the routine in the military prisons or in the Air Force prisons. Then we shall be in a position to know whether the Clause is justified or not.

The Chairman: I doubt whether any question of routine could arise. The hon. Gentleman may be entitled to ask what is the meaning of "air force custody" in the one case and "military custody" in the other, but he may not go into the details of the routine of the different forms of detention.

Mr. Hughes: Thank you, Major Milner. I propose to ask those questions. What does detention under the Army Act and in the Army prisons mean? What does it mean in the Air Force? I ask these questions because I think it is absolutely necessary that the Secretary of State for War or the Secretary of State for Air should amplify statements made by the Secretary of State for War in his speech in the Debate on the Second Reading of the Army and Air Force (Women's Service) Bill last year. The hon. and gallant Member for Henley (Sir G. Fox) asked this question:
Is it intended to put a woman in a cell, and turn the key on her, or put her in a room with a wardress to supervise her?
The Secretary of State for War replied:
I cannot give a picture of the kind of establishment we have in view. At Colchester recently, I saw an establishment for men where there were three tiers of treatment"—
At that point I interrupted the right hon. Gentleman and asked him what kind of tears he meant. The OFFICIAL REPORT tells the story. It says:
Mr. HUGHES: Tears?
Mr. SHINWELL: No, t-i-e-r-s. According to the nature of their offence and sentence, their general conduct, general demeanour, and their


capacity for improvement, the men are treated somewhat differently. I was very pleased, on the whole, with what I saw, although there were some blemishes to which I directed attention, and which we hope to correct.
I hope that in the Debate today we shall be told to what extent these blemishes in the disciplinary system of military barracks have been corrected as a result of the inquiry made by the right hon. Gentleman. He went on to say:
It will be necessary to establish special detention barracks, but there is no question of a 'glasshouse,' or anything of that sort. I think it may be assumed that we should hardly dare to impose severe punishment upon women."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 6th February. 1948; Vol. 446, c. 2079.]

The Chairman: I am afraid that the general question of severe punishment or the detention of women does not arise. The only question is whether, in the one case, the detention shall be permitted under Air Force custody, and, in the other case, under military custody. The hon. Gentleman cannot enter into details of the matter which he is raising.

Mr. Hughes: I think that I have made it perfectly clear to the Minister that, before giving him this Clause, we should have some explanation of exactly what is intended. I want to address myself to the question: How is it right and proper to put airmen into military prisons, and how is it right and proper to put soldiers into Air Force prisons? What sort of training in these prisons is likely to act as a corrective or likely to improve in any way the efficiency of either the Army or the Air Force? Surely the training of an airman will be very different from the training of a soldier. Is the soldier to be trained as an airman or the airman to be trained as a soldier in these establishments? I ask these questions because I have had recently a complaint from a constituent about the corrective treatment meted out to sailors under naval detention. I wonder why the naval offenders do not come under—

The Chairman: That question certainly does not arise.

Mr. Hughes: I am not bringing in the Navy. I only want to have an assurance that the airman and the soldier are treated more intelligently, and that the routine is more intelligent than the routine which I have had drawn to my attention by a constituent.

The Chairman: Order! I have already indicated that the question of routine does not enter into a discussion of this Clause.

Mr. Hughes: I was about to ask whether a part of the training in these corrective military establishments is known as the exercise of doubling round the square in gas-masks, because that is the treatment which was meted out to a constituent. I wish to ask on the question, if there is not an enormous waste of manpower. Are we not continuing in existence these military detention barracks and these Air Force—

The Chairman: I am sorry that I have to call the attention of the Committee to the hon. Gentleman's frequent breaches of Order. He is departing from those matters which are relevant to this Clause and doing so repeatedly. I must ask him, unless he can confine himself to the question raised on the Clause, to resume his seat.

Mr. Hughes: I am trying to keep slightly to this side of the iron curtain. I wish to ask the Minister if he will give us a clear picture of what is to happen to the soldiers in the Air Force detention barracks and to the airmen in the military barracks. What exactly is the purpose of this Clause?

3.45 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: Before the Minister deals with that point, I wish to give support to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), who has made a valiant effort to put a good case. I think that he is entitled, before he allows one of his constituents, who is an airman, to be condemned to a military detention barracks, to get the fullest information as to the character of the detention that the constituent is likely to undergo. If an airman is going into military detention, the hon. Member is entitled to know if his constituent is likely to go into a "glasshouse." The Minister should always bear in mind the word "glasshouse" and remember the old adage about "People who live in glasshouses."
Then again, if the hon. Member for South Ayrshire has a constituent who is in the Army, he has a right, on behalf of that constituent, to know every particular about the conditions in an Air Force detention camp before he allows


him to be sent from the Army to an Air Force detention camp. Some of us have heard occasionally that the Air Force men are treated fairly well. Some of us have also heard occasionally that under Army detention they have been treated very badly. These are the stories, and very often we have had to bring them up in this House to get inquiries made.
If there are worse conditions in a military detention camp than those in an Air Force detention camp, then, of course, we cannot allow this Clause to go through. I think that it is very right and desirable for the hon. Member for South Ayrshire to raise this matter, and the Minister should be able to satisfy us that any member of the Air Force who gets into trouble and who is sent for detention shall not go into worse conditions in a military detention barracks than he would have in an Air Force detention barracks, and he must satisfy the House that any airman sent to detention in an Air Force detention camp will be under no worse conditions than he would have in a military camp. Perhaps he will kindly give us all the information he can on this very important point.

Major Legge-Bourke: All that we want to know on this side of the House is: Why has it been decided to put this Clause into this annual Bill this year? Presumably some special situation has arisen which has made it necessary to insert the Clause into the Bill. I do not think that we are opposed to it, but we should like to know why it is brought in at this time.

Mr. Shurmer: I do not see any difference. If a man commits a crime in the Army he goes into detention; if he commits a crime in the Air Force he goes into detention. Why should there be any different treatment in one case from that in another? I hope that there will be no worse treatment in one than in the other.

Mr. Gallacher: That is what we want to know.

Mr. Chetwynd: If an airman or a soldier is sent to detention that has nothing to do whatever with this Clause. The Clause deals only with those in custody. An airman can serve in a military unit in custody and a soldier

can serve in an Air Force unit in custody. Is it not only a matter of hours? I think that 160 hours is the maximum which they usually serve in custody.

Mr. Solley: I think that my hon. Friend is under some misapprehension because the wording of Clause 4 states specifically:
A person sentenced to detention under that Act shall undergo the term of his detention…
which I apprehend means the entire term of the sentence
either in a detention barrack or in military custody,
or, if we pass this Clause—
in Air Force custody.
Therefore it seems to me that there is no validity in the point raised by the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd). The real point before the Committee is this. Since we are asked to add a further method of serving a term of detention in the case of an airman or a soldier, we ought to know whether by adding to the methods in which detention can be served we are causing any unnecessary hardship to the airman or the soldier.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I ask the Committee to come down to earth again. We have here a Bill called the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill, to provide for discipline in both Services. There should be no difference between the two Services; whether a sentence is served in one or the other, the treatment should be the same.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Michael Stewart): I should be delighted to tell hon. Members who have taken part in this Debate a very great deal about conditions in military detention barracks, but I cannot possibly do so within the limits of this Clause. A sentence of detention may be served either in a detention barrack—and for the purposes of this Bill a corrective establishment would be a barrack—or in military custody, that is in a detention room. It is also possible and legal to have reciprocity with regard to detention barracks between the Services; an airman may serve a term in a military detention barrack, or a soldier in an Air Force detention barrack. That has been legal for some time, and


is in fact occurring at the present moment. That, I think, disposes of most of what was said in the Debate.
This Clause simply extends the same reciprocity to the use of detention rooms. At present, a soldier serving a short sentence, such as may be served not in a detention barrack but in a detention room, or a soldier in transit or awaiting committal, must serve the sentence in military custody; and similarly an airman must do so in Air Force custody. All that this Clause does is to provide reciprocity between the Services. That is an obvious administrative convenience. It may happen that a soldier creates a disturbance in a public place, so that it is necessary to put him under detention; but there may not be a convenient place of military custody nearby, and in such circumstances he could be kept in Air Force custody; and conversely for an airman.
The hon. and gallant Member for Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) asked: Why this year in particular? There are, I think, two answers to that. First, as he will realise, the process of combing, if I may so term it, the Army Act is gone through every year, and we discover by experience that amendments made in the past make certain further consequential amendments desirable. This is merely a consequential amendment on the power taken some time ago for reciprocity in detention barracks. There is the further point, which links up with what was said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Ayrshire—[Laughter.] I am not quite sure whose pardon I should beg in these circumstances.

Captain Crookshank: The Services.

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend made reference to women serving sentences of detention. If that should occur—and there is legal power to impose such a sentence—it would be only a short sentence such as would be served in a detention room. This fact drew our attention to the provision of detention rooms and the desirability of this reciprocity. All that is asked for is a convenient arrangement which will have no other effect than preventing the unnecessary provision of places of military or Air Force custody apart from barracks. I am sure my hon.

Friend would not wish more accommodation than necessary to be used for this purpose, and what we are proposing effects an economy of accommodation. I am sure he would not wish to go down to history as an advocate of that profligate incarceration which we hope to avoid.

Mr. Gallacher: Was there any consultation with the Air Force or the Army before this Clause was introduced?

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Member will see from the Title that this is always a Bill prepared in consultation between the two Ministries.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Supposing a woman is sentenced by court-martial to six months' detention, under the new Bill, where would she serve that sentence, and under what conditions?

Mr. Stewart: She might serve it in a detention barrack or a detention room. The only point on this Clause is that it might be in an Air Force detention room or an Army detention room.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 5 and 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — New Clause.—(TRANSFERS.)

In subsection (2) of section eighty-three of the Army Act (which makes provision for appointments to a corps and for transfers) the word "unless" shall be omitted, and there shall be inserted the words—

"Provided that a soldier appointed to any corps or regiment of infantry may be transferred without his consent to any other corps or regiment within the same group if:"

and at the end of the subsection there shall be inserted the words—

"For the purpose of this subsection a group shall mean any of the groups of corps or regiments of infantry notified in Army Orders or Army Council Instructions."—[Mr. A. R. W. Low.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. A. R. W. Low: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The object of this new Clause is to provide that those who have been attested or re-engaged since the date put into the Army Act last year should be compulsorily transferable only within the


infantry from one group to the other, but should not be subject to compulsory transfer from one corps to another. As I understand it, last year this Committee amended the Army Act to allow for compulsory transfer to take place from one corps to another, and one of the reasons adduced by the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary when putting forward that Amendment was that they thought they must have power to transfer from regiment to regiment within the infantry in order that the group system might work. I have tried to provide for that in this new Clause.
I realise that I have mentioned only one of the reasons put forward last year. I have tried to provide that the old provisions shall be so amended that it will be lawful to transfer soldiers from one regiment of infantry to another regiment of infantry within the same group. The groups are, I believe, already published in the Army Council Instructions, or are at any rate well known. What this new Clause is designed to try to avoid is soldiers enlisted to the Army in, say, the Royal Armoured Corps being compulsorily transferable to R.E.M.E., the Royal Corps of Signals, or even into the infantry. It is also designed to try to avoid soldiers enlisted into a regiment of infantry being compulsorily transferable to the Royal Corps of Signals, R.E.M.E., the Royal Armoured Corps, the Royal Artillery, or anything else against his will, although he can be compulsorily transferred into another regiment of infantry within the same group.
We had a discussion on this last year, and I do not want to go over all the arguments again. However, I would remind the Secretary of State of the very strong points made about the morale aspect of compulsory transfer. I was, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, not a Regular soldier, and I can perhaps not address the Committee at first hand; but I do know, from frequent discussions with hon. and gallant Gentlemen on both sides of the Committee, how very important is the morale factor in building up the Regular Army, and how very important to the morale of a soldier is regimental tradition and the feeling that he is in that regiment or corps for life. There has been an inroad into that as a result of the group system which has been introduced into the infantry. We must

accept that for the time being; I appreciate that at present it is impossible to get over it. But I do not see that we need accept any larger inroad into that principle.
4.0 p.m.
Secondly there is the recruiting point of view. It is important if recruits are to be encouraged to enlist in any regiment or corps of the Regular Army that they should, when they go into the corps or regiment, know that they are there for life if they should so wish. They should not feel they are open to compulsory posting against their will into a branch of the Service for which they did not enlist. The right hon. Gentleman will agree that there is a great deal of importance in that point from the recruiting point of view.
I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman's attitude is going to be to this new Clause, but one objection might be that the War Office are so short of recruits in some branches of the Service at the moment that they require this power to transfer men compulsorily in order to fill up the branches of the Service which are short. If that is the reason which the right hon. Gentleman is going to bring forward in opposition to this new Clause, I hope he will consider carefully what he is doing. He is really using the argument that he must have the power of compulsory transfer in order to fill up the gaps in Regular recruiting, gaps which are caused by the conditions of service, pay and other things, about which we are not concerned this afternoon.
I hope the right hon. Gentleman will carefully consider the great disadvantages which I have briefly described from the moral and the recruiting point of view before he says that there is an overwhelming advantage in retaining the power of compulsory transfer which he now has, having taken it last year. Very briefly I have tried to put the important points. This question is of the greatest importance, and we in this Committee must be familiar with it because we have debated it before.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, this is an age-old battle between the senior administrative staff officers and


the more junior executive officers. In two world wars, it is alleged, the system of unit recruiting on a county basis broke down. I am prepared to admit that that is true up to a point, but I should like to put very strongly the view of the more junior excutive officers as against the arguments put forward by the senior officers. I am very happy indeed to support the Motion proposed by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Blackpool (Mr. Low), who has had an extremely gallant record as a junior fighting officer and has also held a very high staff appointment. For him to move a new Clause such as this, proves conclusively there is much to be said in its favour. I have a haunting belief that a great deal of cross-posting, which took place in the war, was done without due thought at higher levels and was more in the interests of speed, tidiness and economy of effort than for any other very tangible reason. I am fully aware of all the arguments put forward against all persons from one geographical area being in one unit. That has now been overcome by the group system, and I am convinced that transfer should not take place outside the group system. I am adamant on that.
I want to conclude by giving the sort of example which I, personally, saw happen not once but many many times during battle. I should like the Committee to picture for a moment a not very pleasant day on the Italian front. There is snow on the ground, it is raining hard and a number of men are in small slit trenches up to their waists in water, and they have been there for 10 or 12 days so that they are very tired indeed. In the middle of the night a draft is sent up to them to replace casualties. This draft has been culled from other regiments, even from other divisions. They go out in pitch dark and pouring rain, and are put under the command of officers and N.C.Os. who are complete strangers to them. They are asked to attack at 6 o'clock in the morning. That is asking too much of any man. I can assure the Committee that that is a fact, because I have repeatedly seen it with my own eyes, and I realise the danger of it.
Unless this Clause is accepted a principle will be introduced in peacetime which has never been accepted before.

It has been operated in war for reasons which I do not accept, and if it is introduced in peace the final situation will be, in the unfortunate event of another war occurring, even more disastrous than it has been in the past.

Major Legge-Bourke: I do not wish to repeat everything that was said the last time we debated this matter a year ago. During that Debate both the Secretary of State for War and the Under-Secretary of State gave us one or two assurances as to how it was proposed to operate this power, which it had been decided to retain in time of peace. Today we are entitled to ask for a statement of policy on how this power has been operated and how it has worked. The right hon. Gentleman last year in the concluding words of his speech said:
We have to use our men to the best advantage. Does the Committee take exception to that? Surely not."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th April, 1948; Vol. 449, c. 513.]
I feel that all of us are anxious to be assured that it is necessary to retain this power. During the war a great many of us resented it very deeply, as has been said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer), but we realise that there was then a necessity.
Both the Secretary of State for War and the Under-Secretary of State last year told us that it was essential to retain flexibility, and that, therefore, this power ought to be retained in time of peace. How long is that to go on? After all, the grouping system is not entirely popular throughout the Army, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows. We are not contesting that at all, but we are submitting that the group system allows sufficient flexibility, and we are prepared to accept that for the coming year, although we do not bind ourselves for future years. We must be satisfied that, before this cross-posting out of groups and in between groups continues, it is necessary, but we are not satisfied at all that it is.
Last year the right hon. Gentleman doubted very much if it would be deleterious on recruiting. Perhaps he will tell us today, whether, in fact, there has been any effect on recruiting as a result of this cross-posting. It is equally important because of the wastage which it has


caused. We should be told how many officers and other ranks have left or have applied to leave the Army because of cross-posting. We should certainly be given some indication whether or not men who have been in the Regular Army since the war have resented this so much that they have sent in their papers. If that is so, we should consider very seriously whether this should be continued for another year.
The right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend were very guarded in what they said. They said that they were approaching this most carefully and would only use this power in the last extreme, and would, if possible, avoid using it at all. We are entitled to know how often this power has been used. Has it proved effective? Is it really necessary in the coming year, or has it just been left in because there has been no pressure in the intervening period for it to be left out? My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head) would have liked to support the Clause very strongly, but, unhappily, he is absent through illness. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that last year he made a very effective speech on this point and the right hon. Gentleman said that he would bear in mind the points that were raised in that Debate. My hon. and gallant Friend was speaking from the experience of the war years and, of course, what was the experience in the war years is accentuated in time of peace; and there certainly is resentment. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give us a full statement about what has happened during the last year.

General Sir George Jeffreys: This is a most necessary Clause. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer) mentioned senior staff officers. I think that he was referring to senior administrative staff officers because it was such officers on the lines of communication who found this system of dealing with men, to whom they referred in their jargon as "bodies," very much more convenient than dealing with men as men belonging to definite units. There is no doubt that this system is to some extent necessary for the group system but I believe that in the last war and certainly in the 1914–18 war it was often operated quite unnecessarily.
I shall give an example to show how the system operated in the 1914–18 war. In a division which I had the honour at that time to command were certain battalions which after some rather heavy engagements suffered considerable casualties. We had come out of the line and I was riding round one day when I saw what was obviously a draft from the base standing outside the headquarters of one of my battalions. I decided to have a look at the draft and talk to some of the men, and I got off my horse and inspected the draft and asked the men where they had come from. Some of them were not very young soldiers.
I found that they had come from a battalion of the Worcester Regiment and that every one of that draft of more than 100 men belonged to the Oxfordshire Light Infantry, another very distinguished regiment. They had had their badges taken out of their hats. Many of them were Regular soldiers and had been wounded and had come back again, and they found themselves transferred to another regiment, a very good regiment but not their own. They were strangers in a strange land, and, to use a vulgar expression, they were "as sick as mud" about it. There was certainly not much morale about that draft. What I have described was not an uncommon occurrence.
4.15 p.m.
Something else happened at that time which was even more remarkable. A large draft arrived for a battalion of the Gloucestershire Regiment in the same division, and it was found that all the men belonged to a territorial battalion of the Warwickshire Regiment in the same brigade. They had had the badges taken out of their hats. The Royal Warwickshire Regiment required a draft and in due course got one and the men were all transferred to a new regiment by a stroke of the pen at the base. I was able to get that undone. It was simple. By corresponding direct with G.H.Q. at once, I had the transfer cancelled and the draft posted to its own regiment.
That was the sort of thing that went on. It saved somebody trouble. People would say, "We have so many bodies. Let us send them along." Something of the same kind happened in the last


war also, and these cross postings were often undone by arrangements between the units concerned. A regiment would get a draft of men belonging to another regiment and, as a result of correspondence or personal touch, those men were sent where they belonged—the men were jolly glad of it—and other men were obtained in their place. It does not look as if the cross-posting system was very intelligently worked.
It was brought to my notice by a distinguished senior officer that in the Second World War cross-posting meant very great hardship for the men concerned. They landed, say, in North Africa, belonging to a certain regiment, with all their mails addressed to them as belonging to that regiment and their comforts arranged through that regiment's association, and for two or three months after having been transferred to some other regiment they lost touch with their mails—which meant with their families at home—with their comforts and with everything else. They were nobody's children and wanderers in strange lands.
These things are worth taking into consideration because it upsets the morale and spirit of the soldier to treat him as a "body" and post him anywhere. It also causes difficulty in cases where men have strong connections with a certain regiment. I have had letters from old soldiers who particularly want their sons to join their old regiment. One has sometimes been able to get that done by writing to the War Office, but there have been many cases of men with very strong regimental or county connections who have been sent somewhere else willy-nilly, which has nearly broken their hearts and the hearts of their parents. The Clause will mitigate these disadvantages, and I hope that it will be given favourable consideration.

Mr. M. Stewart: The effect of the new Clause is to restrict the power of compulsory transfer to transfers from one regiment within a group to another regiment within that group. Though I do not want to make this a discussion merely on verbal matters, I ought to point out that the moving of a man from one regiment to another regiment in the same group is not, strictly speaking, a transfer and that we should have that power independently of the Amendment which

was introduced into the Army and Air Force (Annual) Act last year. The Clause would therefore leave us with something which we have already. Passing the Clause would put us back in the position which existed before the Amendment inserted in the Army Act last year was accepted. The real issue is the merits or demerits of the power of compulsory transfer which was taken last year. I think the Committee would wish me to discuss the matter on the merits of that real issue.
What were the reasons and, indeed, what still are the reasons for this power of compulsory transfer? The hon. Member for North Blackpool (Mr. Low) mentioned one undoubted reason, the problem of the balance of recruiting, particularly between the less technical and more technical arms, and he warned us quite rightly against laying too much stress on that reason; it may well be that if one finds a deficiency in recruiting in certain arms, one ought carefully to consider what there is in those arms and in that service which causes that deficiency. However, I am not satisfied that even if one made the most careful investigation into the reasons why men volunteer or do not volunteer for this or that arm, one would necessarily discover the answers with such certainty that one could solve the recruiting problem solely by better publicity, by changed conditions in this or that branch of the Service. There is an unbalance between the supply of recruits into different arms and branches of the Service and the demand for their service, which still remains as one valid reason for taking this power of compulsory transfer. However, I agree entirely with the hon. Member for North Blackpool that it is by no means the only reason, and that we could not rest the case on that alone. I would merely ask the Committee to remember that there is an unbalance between the supply of and demand for volunteers in different arms, and that this furnishes one reason for this power of compulsory transfer.
A further reason lies in the fact that compulsory transfer was the rule during the war because we were in a state of emergency, but there are now in the Regular Army men who have a reserve right, when the emergency comes to an end, to go back to the corps to which they belonged originally if they wish to


do so. There are probably more than 10,000 men with that right, and one cannot say for certain in advance whether, when the emergency comes to an end, they will wish to exercise that right or not. It remains, therefore, a large uncertain factor which might—and there is no means of telling whether it will or not—add greatly to the unbalance between the different corps.
That is another reason, though again not by itself a complete reason why we asked for and obtained last year this power of compulsory transfer, to rectify unbalance that might arise from that cause. To my mind, however, there is an even more compelling reason. It lies in the unpredictability of changes in the art of war. We have all seen in the comparatively recent past great changes in the methods by which war is won, and every one of those changes, every new invention in the military art, alters an Army's demand for men in this, that or the other arm or branch of the Service. Consequently we must see that we are capable of moving men within certain limits as scientific necessity may require.
Can any hon. Member tear aside the veil of the future and tell us what scientific inventions will occur in the next five or 10 years which will affect the rôle of the artillery for example? Will those inventions be such as to make it desirable for a modem Army to have a greater or less proportion of its men in the artillery than at present? There is really no certain way of answering that question for several years ahead, and if we attempted to assume that no such changes might occur, we need make no such provision against these unforeseen possibilities but we would be imposing stagnation on our Army. We would be requiring it to live as if the process of scientific invention were not going on.
In effect, then, we are saying to the man who joins the Army today, "You will recognise something which was not true in the days of your father and grandfather; that is to say, you are going into the Army when the whole art of war is highly technical and where not even the wisest counsel can foretell what changes there will be in its technique during your period of service. Inevitably, therefore, if you want to give of your best to the

Army you must be prepared for at least the possibility that you will be required to serve in future years in a different way from that which was your original intention."
We also say to him, "We shall endeavour, so far as is humanly possible and consistent with the general efficiency of the Army, to enable your desire to be fulfilled, but you must recognise, since you live in a scientific age, that it may not be possible to fulfil it." Is not that something which affects the civilian as well as the soldier? The civilian today knows that he may be required to acquire new skills more frequently in a lifetime than his father or grandfather might have been required to do because he lives in a scientific age.
Now the Regular soldier, I know, has every reason—and I have a suspicion that this is the point in the minds of hon. Gentlemen at this moment—to ask for greater security of tenure in the regiment or corps to which he belongs than has a civilian any right to expect in his civilian job. Despite that, the soldier cannot be divorced entirely from a scientific development that affects the whole of human society and every field of human activity.
So really what is at issue is this. The Army has relied a great deal, and quite rightly, on old and traditional loyalties; on the desire of a man not merely to serve his country but to serve it in a certain way, to serve it among men of his own choice, to serve it in a regiment with which maybe his family has been associated. We shall do well to make the most of that strong sentiment of traditional loyalty, but we should do wrongly if we adhered to that to such an extent that we prevented the Army from taking full advantage of the developments of modern science. That is what is in issue at the present time, because it is the scientific changes in the technique of warfare that oblige us to say to the soldier, "Much as we respect your traditional loyalty, you must have in mind the possibility that we shall not be able throughout the whole of your service to keep you in exactly the regiment or the corps you desire." We are saying no more to him than that. We are merely saying, "This is one of the possibilities, not one of the probabilities or likelihoods, but it might happen to you and we are


obliged to make that clear from the time you join the Army."
I would go further and say that not only is there this necessity for the soldier of today to recognise what we ask him to recognise, but that increasingly he is recognising it. Not long ago we made an inquiry among a number of sergeants and warrant officers of long service who had sons at the age when they might consider going to an Army apprentice school or entering the Army on boy's service. We put to them the question, "What regiment or what arm or branch of the Service would you like your son to join?" The answer in every case was, "The one in which he will be able to give the best service." Some of them went on to say that they hoped the one in which their son would give the best service would be the one in which they themselves had served. All, however, without exception, made that a secondary consideration to the fact that the boy should enter that regiment, arm, or branch of the Service where, according to his particular abilities, he could give the best service.
4.30 p.m.
I do not think we should have got that unanimity if that question had been put some 20 or 25 years ago. In those days the emphasis would have been much more on an almost automatic assumption that the boy should enter the particular regiment, arm or branch of the Service to which his father had belonged. I do not want to put too much stress on a particular experience but I think that suggests that, not only is there this inevitable necessity which I have described, but that it is recognised by the soldier of today. That is not unnatural, because, after all, this power of compulsory transfer has been with us as an emergency power for a considerable number of years. In answer to a question which was raised by the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke), we really have no evidence to suppose that this fact of compulsory transfer is a cause of resignations from the Army. Resignations are caused by a great variety of considerations.
I have tried to outline the reasons why we take this power. I should like, in conclusion, to say something about the use which has been made, or which it is proposed to make, of this power. The

hon. and gallant Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer) drew a very moving picture of the position that might arise on active service—

Brigadier Prior - Palmer: It had actually arisen.

Mr. Stewart: —if this power is unwisely used. Similar experiences were contributed by the hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys). Really, what was it that those hon. and gallant Gentlemen were arguing against? Not the possession of this power by the War Department, because I do not believe anyone would really contend that in time of war any War Department could fail to ask for and obtain this power of compulsory transfer. That is something we should need to have in time of war. What the hon. and gallant Gentlemen were really arguing against was its inefficient, stupid and unimaginative use in time of war. That is not an argument against the power being there. The real question is, how is it used, to what extent, and with what degree of imagination and regard for the feelings of the men—not bodies—who are to be moved. We have fulfilled, both in the letter and the spirit, the undertakings that were given when this matter was discussed last year. What I have to say next will show that, perhaps, it has been easy for us to do that because we have not so far used this power to transfer a single man.
Hon. Members will realise that that is not altogether surprising because the number of men who, by virtue of the very powers we took would be liable to have them used on them, is so far very small. Whenever we had taken these powers it would have been most unlikely that any extensive use would have been made of them in the first year; we have, in fact, not used this power at all. We have, however, laid down an Army Council Instruction governing the use of this power. It makes it clear, first, that the power is to be used, or its use suggested or recommended, only if there is real necessity; second, that the men who are liable to be affected by it shall have the reasons for what is to be done set before them; third, that they shall have the right to state in writing their objections to being so transferred; and fourth, that the proposed use of the power, together with the objections of


the men in question, shall come under the personal consideration of a member of the Army Council. Hon. Members may feel one way or the other about our having the power, but I think they will agree we have done our best to fulfil the undertaking we gave to the House last year and to take every precaution to ensure that the power should be efficiently used.
The case, therefore, which I put to the Committee is that the request we made last year, and which, in effect, we are asking to have confirmed this year, arises from an inevitable necessity of mid-twentieth century life, a necessity that appears in every sphere of activity and from which the military sphere cannot be exempt. Second, not only is that necessity there, but it is increasingly recognised by the men in the Army themselves. Third, while, because of that necessity, we ask for the power, we are by no means unmindful of all the considerations so powerfully advanced by Members of the Committee, and we have already demonstrated our intention to exercise the utmost caution in its use and we shall bear all this in mind so long as we have these powers.

Earl Winterton: I intended, on behalf of my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee, to put the case for the new Clause, but the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State, as he was fully entitled to do, came in front of me. I now want to put one or two points to the Secretary of State himself. May I pay a tribute to the way in which the Under-Secretary endeavoured to put what, I think, is a weak case? I shall say why it is a weak case in a moment or two. Before I do so, I should like to make this observation. This is one of these fascinating little Debates which arise on what most people thought was going to be a dull afternoon in a thinly-filled House of Commons; fascinating because the issues involved are—this is the point I want to put to the Secretary of State himself—really fundamental to the whole spirit and morale of the British Army.
I should like to call attention to the speeches made by my hon. and gallant Friends the Members for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer) and Petersfield

(Sir G. Jeffreys), who were speaking front a wealth of experience and very distinguished war service in the two wars, and called attention to the injury which is done by cross-posting. Incidentally, perhaps I may tell my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Worthing that the reason I called his attention to the fact that he was not seconding the Clause is that it is a very valuable right of Members of this Committee to move an Amendment without being seconded. Certain hon. Members in some quarters, however, are not always aware of this and rise to say, "I beg to second." It was for that reason that I called attention to this ancient right of the Committee.
I should like to mention a case somewhat similar to that which has been put by my hon. and gallant Friends. While I do not claim that the branch of the Service in which I served for many years throughout the 1914 war—the Yeomanry—has any special merit over that of any other branch of the Service, it does happen to be a branch in which there was strong esprit de corps. One thing which gravely injured recruiting, at any rate for the Yeomanry—and I think many of my hon. Friends would agree that this applied also to recruiting for other branches of the Territorial service—after the 1914 war was the way in which, quite unnecessarily, Yeomanry regiments in particular, and Territorial regiments in general, were filled up with recruits who had no connection whatever with the counties from which those Yeomanry and Territorial regiments came.
I apologise for having to say this to hon. Gentlemen opposite, but it is the fact that to some extent the Yeomanry regiments were class regiments, in the sense that those who belonged to them were farmers, traders and others from particular towns and country districts. That was why they were called Yeomanry. Those regiments, however, were filled up with men from the large towns who had nothing in common with those who formed the bulk of the voluntary members of the Yeomanry regiments. To some extent the same thing applied to the Territorials. As one who was a former member of the Territorial Association in my county after the 1914 war, I can vouch from my own official experience that one of the reasons


why men would not join the Territorials was because of the way they had been—I cannot use the proper phrase, but hon. Gentlemen will perhaps guess what I mean—bothered about in the course of the war; by the manner in which their regiments and yeomanries had been treated in this matter of cross-posting.
I am afraid I must tell the right hon. Gentleman, although he is no doubt already familiar with it, that exactly the same fear exists in the minds of Territorials today. One of the reasons men are not joining the Territorials is their experience in the 1914 and 1939 wars. I am sorry to tell my hon. and gallant Friends behind me and other hon. Members that there is a strong feeling in the minds of Territorials—and always has been—that this is done by the Regular soldier who contends that the idea of the Territorial having a regimental tradition is all nonsense, that he is only a part-time soldier and has to be treated like everyone else in the Army, as the War Office lay down. That is all very well, but when we have only 70,000 out of an establishment of 150,000 in the Territorial Army, the War Office and everyone else must have regard to their feelings.
I come to the defence made by the Under-Secretary of State. He endeavoured to make a sympathetic speech, although I am afraid—and I hope this will not be regarded as an attack on him—the effect of his speech will not be to relieve the apprehension which exists in the minds of many Service men, but rather to increase it. He began by saying that at present there was an unbalance in the various units of the Army. I cannot understand how that unbalance arose because, presumably, it was at the time of recruiting, and I understand that the Government took power under the National Service Act to send a man to any unit to which they wished to send him. Surely there should be less unbalance in National Service than there was in the old days of Regular service. Is not that so?

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Shinwell): The noble Lord is quite right, but we have to depend very largely on the Regular elements, and there has been some unbalance.

Earl Winterton: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his sympathetic reply, but

it is difficult to see why there should be more unbalance today with National Service than in the old days of voluntary service. One would have thought it would have been less. The hon. Gentleman went on to say that we must reserve the right in this emergency. I do not know what he means by "emergency." We are trying to build up the Army for the purpose for which it is intended. Why should it be an emergency four years after the war?

Mr. Stewart: The noble Lord misheard or misunderstood. I spoke of reserve rights in emergency and I was speaking of men transferred under emergency powers during the war who will have reserve rights, when the emergency comes to an end, to go back to their original corps. Because of that, we have an unpredictable factor which will crop up and against which we must take some precaution.

Earl Winterton: I am sorry if I put the matter clumsily. I understood perfectly what the hon. Gentleman said. I want to know why there is this emergency today, four years after the war is over. We hear too much excused on the grounds of emergency and this is four years after the signing of the armistice with Germany.
The hon. Gentleman went on with what was obviously intended to be an appeal to the Army to disregard the arguments raised by my hon. and gallant Friends, powerful as they were. He said that, after all, in this emergency the average Service man could not object to being compulsorily transferred from one unit to another because the same was happening to civilians. But there is no compulsion in the case of civilians. I should be out of Order if I discussed that at length, but there is no compulsion except in the case of mining and agriculture and one other trade. A man is not told that he will be compulsorily transferred from one industry to another, except to a limited degree. In any case, the analogy is false because in the case of the Army they are enlisted men and cannot object, whereas, in the case of civilians, even in the case of a man who wants to leave agriculture, there is an appeal to the Minister of Agriculture, and I believe the same happens in regard to mining.
4.45 p.m.
The hon. Gentleman said that not a single man had been transferred, but the Government still wanted to retain the power. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) and I, discussing the matter on this Front Bench, were interested and somewhat concerned by a phrase which the hon. Gentleman used. The phrase was "the unpredictability of changes in the art of war." The hon. Gentleman went on to say, in an eloquent passage, that no one knew what would happen in the next year or two and that there might be a complete alteration in the methods of waging war. Is that really a valid argument for this practice? It seemed to have a rather sinister meaning, otherwise it would seem almost meaningless, because at all times the art of war has been changing, from the days of bows and arrows to the present time. That is no reason for refusing the comparatively small concession for which we ask.
What, in fact, are my hon. and gallant Friends asking in this new Clause? They are asking for something which goes to the very heart and substance of the whole British Army system, which has been built up on pride of localities. That is the reason for the names of many units like the Coldstream Guards, and many others which could be mentioned. A man joining an infantry regiment expects to be allowed to serve in that regiment, which is recruited from the district from which he came. Not only is there the pride of locality, but a man joining another unit might do so because of civilian associations. In these days, for example, he may wish to join the Tank Corps because he had the association of and training as a mechanic, and so on. While I am willing to accept that the Under-Secretary of State speaks with all the authority of expert opinion behind him, and while I am willing to accept a certain amount of the argument he used, I am not convinced, and I hope that this matter will go to a Division. I am still not convinced that the War Office appreciate the wealth of the argument of my hon. and gallant Friends, nor that they realise that we still cannot get men to join in a sufficient number and that there are a great number of unwilling conscripts.
Although I cannot discuss that matter at length, I believe very firmly that one

of the reasons is the uncertainty of the military life to the man who joins the Army today and the fact that he does not know whether he will continue in the branch of the Service or unit in which he would like to serve. That applies particularly to the young conscript. Supposing a young conscript, reasonably keen about his military service, goes to the training depot and is informed that he will be drafted to X battalion. He goes there and makes friends; then, in about three months' time, he is sent to an entirely different unit. Can we wonder that be becomes an unwilling conscript? It equally applies to the Regular soldier, and one of the difficulties of getting Regular soldiers is the practice to which reference is made by this Clause.
I thought the Under-Secretary did not give the appearance that he was on very firm ground. I think he used the phrase —I did not take it down, so he can correct me if I am wrong—that he "had no evidence" to support the point made by one of my hon. and gallant Friends that one of the causes of the calamitous drift away from the Regular Army, especially of senior N.C.O.s and junior officers, was this uncertainty of military life resulting from the cross-posting which is dealt with in this new Clause. I think that if he inquired into the cases a little more fully, he would find that there is evidence to that effect—a great deal of evidence.
I should probably be ruled out of Order if I said more than a sentence on this point, but as this matter has been mentioned I think I might make this suggestion. I would like some inquiries made, and I would gladly put down an arranged Question, to be answered after Question Time, as to the reason why so many officers are leaving the Army at present. We ought to know. We are entitled to think that one of the reasons is the provision in the Army Act which this Clause seeks to remove.

Colonel Lancaster: I should like briefly to support the points put forward by my noble Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), and particularly so because I feel that this matter affects recruiting much more than is recognised, both to the Regular Army and the Territorial Army. Reference has been made to the attitude of the Regular Army towards the Territorial Army in matters of this sort. I had the great advantage as


a Regular soldier to command a Territorial unit, and I very soon learned something of the fierce pride which Territorials have in their local associations. As the war went on I was appalled by the way in which the War Office dealt with "bodies" in the matter of cross-posting. Various examples of this have been given today.
I want to give an example to show the sort of depths to which the War Office descended in such matters. It is such an appalling example that hon. Members may question its validity. There came a time just before I gave up commanding my unit when I was told to send 200 reinforcements to another regiment. I did not like doing so, but I recognised the necessity. Two hundred men went to a certain regiment, and at the same time I was told to send 12 officers to another regiment. Just by chance I happened to be speaking on the telephone to the commanding officer of a similar unit in another part of England, and he told me that that morning he had had to send 200 men to one regiment and 12 officers to another regiment. It so happened that I had received his 12 officers for my 200 men, and he had received my 200 men for his 12 officers. The long and short of that story is that we got on to the War Office and pointed out the facts. Here is the appalling aspect of the story. All that they said was: "Oh, if you feel like that, we will post the officers back to their own men." They did not say, "We have done something wrong; we are horrified by what we did, and we apologise." Their attitude was, "Oh, if you feel like that." That was the basis of the approach of the War Office to this question of posting "bodies" during the war.
The Under-Secretary of State said that so far, they had had nothing of this sort. Of course, the test does not come at a moment like this; the test comes subsequently. If we can do anything this afternoon to express our opinion on this matter it is worth doing so. I do not believe that recruiting will ever improve until there is the clearest recognition by the War Office and by the authorities of what a man's associations mean to him—the association of his regiment, the association of the part of the world from which he comes. the association with the men and the officers with whom he serves. Until that is clearly recognised we shall get no improvement. I hope

this matter will go to a Division. I believe that it is fundamental to the interests of the Army, and I very strongly support all that has been said in this regard.

Mr. S. N. Evans: I had not intended to speak, but I have listened with great interest to what has been said, and it is, of course, of very great importance. Speaking from four years' experience, I should not say that the War Office was the most imaginative of bodies. That must not be taken to denigrate the strenuous efforts now being made by the present Secretary of State for War to humanise the Army. I was particularly interested in what the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) said about the class basis of the yeomanry regiments, because I served with a regiment which was officered very largely by gentleman farmers and people like that, and the rank and file consisted almost wholly of Northumberland and Durham miners. If I mentioned the name of the regiment everyone would know that it was much the best that served in the First World War.
Drawing on my experience with the Northumberland Hussars, I should like to quote one example of what tradition means and how tradition comes about. A regiment takes part in an engagement, possibly suffers very severe casualties, and that engagement becomes a legend which makes it a credit to serve in that regiment. There can be no doubt that such events influence men towards joining a particular regiment. I know that most of my mob—that is how we used to describe ourselves—always felt that we should like to be in the Black Watch. Of all British regiments, in my view there can be no doubt that the Black Watch is the one which has an immortal tradition, and it would be very difficult for me to think that the Black Watch had any difficulty in attracting recruits.
Of course, tradition accrues in other ways. I remember during the battle of Vimy Ridge when the Fort Garry Horse, the Canadians, and ourselves were engaged in sorties each night and trying to relieve each other of nickel bits and stirrups which in those days were very prized possessions. Of course, happenings of that kind, although sometimes regarded as slightly discreditable, become legendary. Then there was the day when it was decided that my own regiment,


which had served since October, 1914, should be broken up. As any man who has had experience of this will know, it is a terrible feeling. We were given three alternatives. First, we might become a flying machine gun squadron; that was not a very healthy occupation in those days. Then there was the alternative of going into the Military Police, and thirdly there was the chance of joining the Royal Flying Corps, on the ground. With respect to those branches of the Service, the last two alternatives, of joining the R.F.C. on the ground or the Military Police, were two fairly safe forms of soldiering.
The significant thing was that we all wanted to stop with our own regiment which was going to be engaged in a type of warfare much more hazardous than we had experienced in the past. The tradition and comradeship which is carried on down the generations in soldiering is of paramount importance. While I do not think that the Opposition are justified in forcing this matter to a Division in present circumstances, I believe that if at an early date, we could do away with the risk of men being posted away from regiments of their own choice, it would undoubtedly assist recruiting.

5.0 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Cuthbert Headlam (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North): I am one of those who greatly regret that it has been found necessary in time of peace to start the grouping system. I think it has done and is doing a great deal of harm to the Army. I cordially agree with what the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans) has said, that the British Army has depended very largely for its successes all through history on its traditions. Those who have studied the military history of this country in the pages of Sir John Fortescue's great book realise how that tradition has saved us in many a hard encounter in different parts of the world.
The basis of our military strength is what is called the "spirit of the regiment." I know there is a school of thought in the Army today which believes it is possible to institute a spirit of the Army; they say that if there is a spirit of the Navy and the Royal Air Force, why cannot we have a spirit of the Army? It may be that in time we shall get that,

although it is my belief that we never shall. My own belief is that the Regular Army owes everything to its territorial associations, and traditions. I belonged, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) and the hon. Member for Wednesbury to a yeomanry regiment. The hon. Member for Wednesbury said that if we knew his regiment we should know that it was second to none, but I say that it would be second to one, and that was the spirit of the Territorial Army and I hope it still is.
I am sure that the great difficulty about recruiting today is due to the fact that men are no longer certain of being able to serve with their friends. It is all very well to say, "I belong to a light infantry group," but what has a man from Durham got in common with a man from Shropshire or Somerset? He is in a strange country, and he does not understand their language and they do not understand his. I do not believe that system will ever be a success. I am quite certain that officers and N.C.O.s who want to make their regiment their home for life will not be satisfied with being kicked about from pillar to post.
The Under-Secretary says that there is no proof whatsoever that the resignations among officers that are reported to be taking place at the present time are due to that uncertainty to which I have attested, but I can assure him from friends of mine who are in touch with the Army that the constant complaint among officers is that they no longer know to which regiment they belong or where they may be sent. A boy I know quite well was sent out recently to one of the battalions of his regiment in Burma. He was told that his particular battalion was to be kept on, but that the other battalion was to be scrapped. He had not been there three months before his battalion was scrapped.

Mr. Shinwell: Do I understand the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to say that a boy had gone out to Burma to join his battalion?

Sir C. Headlam: Yes, and the boy is well known to me because he is my adopted son.

Mr. Shinwell: I understood the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to say that


the boy joined his battalion. Did he not mean "mission," because we have no battalions in Burma?

Sir C. Headlam: At the time he joined his battalion we still had troops in Burma. The battalion was scrapped and he and a great many others were cast adrift and found themselves in other regiments in Malaya. We cannot expect that family life and esprit de corps which is the tradition of the Army to continue if we do this kind of thing. It may be necessary for the time being, and it may be necessary in this scientific age to shift men from one group to another, but the real evil seems to me to be that there is not enough security in a soldier's life today. I am sure that sooner or later we shall realise we are running great risks, and that the chief reason for recruiting being so bad is that the men no longer feel they belong to a particular regiment the majority of whose personnel come from the county in which they live.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans) has on many recent occasions come down on the side of the angels. I hope very much that his speech commended itself to the right hon. Gentleman. If it did not do so, then I invite the right hon. Gentleman to consult this week's "Tribune," where he will see an article written by the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) characterising the hon. Member's speeches as "earthy common sense." The Under-Secretary put me in a state of some confusion by insisting, at the beginning of his remarks, that this new Clause does not make the necessary alterations to the Army Act to achieve the result that is required. He left me with the impression that the Opposition would have power to do what we wanted to do, even if this new Clause were accepted. I should he grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would explain how that is, because my hon. Friends on this side have sought to move a substantive Amendment to achieve the end they wanted. If the Government are going to do what they want by some side wind, it is only fair to tell us what it is.
I draw attention to the limited character of this new Clause. We have had some graphic speeches from this side, calling attention to what happened in both wars

when recruits were sent up from infantry regiments to join other infantry regiments at the front. It might be thought that this new Clause was designed to remove that situation altogether. But we have studied the convenience of the War Office and expediency to the point of saying that there shall be an absolute compulsory right of posting on the part of the War Office between groups. Therefore, the new Clause is not designed exactly to deal with the kind of situation delineated by my hon. and gallant Friends, although they have very graphically painted the picture of the principle that is involved.
The Under-Secretary sought to justify what the Government are trying to do by three main arguments. He drew attention to the unbalanced situation, chiefly in the Regular Army, and to these 10,000 persons who at the end of the emergency, whatever that may mean, may require to transfer to other arms. Finally, he raised the question of the change in the art of war. I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would tell us a little more about this unbalanced state of the Army, and whether it is confined to the Regular Army. Would not the right hon. Gentleman admit that the best answer to the unbalanced state is a better recruiting drive, to enlist people to those branches of the Army which are short of men?
This is not a question of an emergency and of quick movement—I will say a word about it in relation to changes in the art of war in a moment. We have a good deal of time and many things can be done by persuasion, propaganda and recruiting to readjust this unbalanced state of the Regular Army. Then I do not understand why the Government should bring into this argument the 10,000 men who are an unknown factor. As I understand it, the Amendment which was inserted in the Army Act last year specifically exempted from compulsory transfer men who re-enlisted or who re-engaged before 1st July, 1948. I say that the Minister has no control at all over the 10,000 men he referred to why they should be brought into the calculation I cannot understand. But if they can be brought in, is not the answer to ask these men what they want to do? It is easy. The Adjutant General's department has their cards filed in a great index. A lot


of buttons can be pressed and out will come the 10,000 cards. The men can be asked what they propose to do; and I commend that course to the Minister.
Finally, there is the argument about changes in the art of war. The basis of the Under-Secretary's belief in this matter appears to be an existing state of emergency, and the great strides forward which have been made in the art of war. He says that will continue at the pace of the past few years. That is a wrong attitude to adopt. As I conceive it, the art of war leaps forward at an increasing accelerated pace during war itself; when the war is over the pace in the change of technique, is very much slower. The Minister is carrying forward into the future the kind of conception of changes in the art of war which were derived from experience during the last war. On the contrary, I believe there is a good deal of time in which to exercise persuasion over a period to get these men into the right branches of the Service.
I do not believe that we shall suddenly discover a new technique which will require the transfer of thousands of men compulsorily from one arm to another. There is a good deal of time to recruit for the right branches of the Service as scientific development continues, and to exercise persuasion—time in which to ask men whether they would like to change their branch of the Service for something else. The Under-Secretary said that the Government had not used this power during the past year. Then why legislate for it? Is there any prospect of wanting to compel men to change from their branch in the Army in the coming year? If there was not last year, why should there be this year? Is the emergency graver than it was six months ago? I doubt it.

Mr. M. Stewart: The number of men who will be liable for transfer under last year's provisions will be larger as a result of the passage of time. I explained that in the first 12 months it was unlikely that we could or should have made extensive use of the power.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Even if the number of men is larger this year than last, it cannot be so much larger and if not one man was transferred last year, then why now?
Why do not Members opposite apply this principle of compulsory change to some of their own professions and trades? The Secretary of State has great experience of the mining industry. What would happen if the Coal Board suddenly ordered a reshuffle of checkweighmen, fillers, winders or cutters? Would not that give rise to a very serious situation? Do not trade union regulations require that every man should stick closely to his own job, and not transfer to another? Right hon. and hon. Members opposite accept the principle of separatism in their own professions and trades, but when it comes to the Army men are required to forgo their wishes and are moved about like pawns in a game at the bidding of an Adjutant-General who has no idea of the importance of regimental tradition and morale at the time of contact with the enemy. I hope the Minister will pay attention to this matter, and will try to make a more conciliatory speech than was made to the Committee by the Under-Secretary.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: The noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), in amiable fashion, has stated that the principle we are now discussing is fundamental to the British Army. In one sense I am in a great deal of agreement with him. It is fundamental to the success of the Army that we should deploy our forces according to circumstances and requirements. At the same time, I would not join issue with hon. and gallant Members opposite in their assertion that so far as is practicable—and it is desirable that it should be practicable—we should retain the esprit de corps, the traditional loyalty and territorial attachments which are an integral part of the Army. There is no quarrel on that score.
I have, however, listened to some very queer, if not fantastic, arguments from the Members opposite. First, I would direct attention to a fact which I should have thought was familiar, that not every unit in the Army has a territorial connection. Listening to Members opposite one might assume that every unit had such an association, that every regiment and unit was married to a particular locality. That, of course, applies only to certain regiments, not to all units, and certainly not to groups. Hon and gallant


Members opposite have agreed that the group system is inevitable in existing circumstances.
To fortify what I have just said, I would direct attention to the position of the Royal Artillery which, of course, has no territorial connection, and to the R.E.M.E., which constitutes a very substantial part—some people believe too large a part—but nevertheless a very necessary part, of the British Army. In addition, there are the Signals, and nobody will doubt the importance of the Signals branch in the British Army. Moreover, in reply to the right hon. and gallant Member for North Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Sir C. Headlam) who said that the men in Durham did not like to be transferred to a regiment in Shropshire, and vice versa, I would tell him that even in the Durham Light Infantry there are men who are not indigenous to Durham. No doubt the same observation would apply to Shropshire.
I am told, for what it may be worth, and there may be some substance in what I have been told, that even in the Black Watch, the historic Scottish regiment to which my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans) referred—I was very glad he made the reference to it because one of my sons was himself an officer in that regiment—there is a very large number of Cockneys, which no doubt leavens the lump. It must not be assumed that every man in the Irish Guards is an Irishman. Hon. Members must be careful in these statements, and must try to understand what the actual position is.

Sir C. Headlam: The right hon. Gentleman must realise perfectly, when he speaks about the Durham Light Infantry, that it is a Durham regiment and that nine out of ten people who enlist in the Army in the County of Durham join that regiment. [HON. MEMBERS: "No"] Well, they used to. The position may be quite different now. I do not know why hon. Members said: "No." How do hon. Members know? I know, because I live in Durham. The majority of young men who join the Army or who used to join the Army in the old days in Durham, were Durham men. It may be different now, and in war time it is still more different.

Mr. Shinwell: I have no desire to quarrel with the right hon. and gallant Member, and certainly I should not traduce the Durham Light Infantry, a very gallant and historic regiment. I hope that I have disposed of this quaint conception that every unit in the British Army has a territorial connection. I must now attempt to dispose of another fantastic conception, for which I am afraid the noble Lord opposite was responsible, although only partly, since contributions were made by other hon. and gallant Members on this subject. It is that this matter affects the Territorial Army. It has nothing to do with the Territorial Army at all, and the Territorial Army is not affected. [Interruption.] Some hon. Member opposite interjects, and says: "In wartime." I shall deal with that point at a later stage.

Earl Winterton: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to me. I am sure that he will not mind my saying that I was using the argument of cross-posting in the Territorial Army in wartime. My whole endeavour was to try to find a measure of agreement between us, but the right hon. Gentleman seems to be trying to prevent any measure of agreement existing between the Financial Secretary to the War Office and ourselves. I do not think it is good that there should be a Division on this matter.

Mr. Shinwell: I very largely agree with the noble Lord. If there is any possibility of reaching a measure of agreement I have no desire to prevent it. I shall be very glad if we can avoid a Division, but if we have to face one, we shall do so with our customary fortitude. The point made by the noble Lord was—and I am sure that he will correct me if I am wrong—that cross-posting affected recruitment for the Territorial Army. I have heard of all sorts of other reasons why recruitment for the Territorial Army has been affected, but this is the first time I have heard that cross-posting during wartime prevented men from joining the Territorial Army. The Territorial Army is closely attached to the particular territory from whence its regimental name is derived. No difficulty whatever arises in that connection.

Earl Winterton: The right hon. Gentleman invited me to correct him. I used the argument which was used by one of my hon. Friends, who gave specific


examples during the 1914 war of cross-postings which I thought were totally unnecessary and which affected recruiting for the Territorial Army after that war. I said that I was anxious to know whether cross-posting was doing so today. I was using it as an argument against cross-posting.

Mr. Shinwell: Apart from units such as those in the Artillery, Signals and Anti-Aircraft regiments, the territorial connection, so far as the Territorial Army is concerned, is retained. I give that assurance to the noble Lord. As to the illustrations which have been furnished to us, naturally I accept what hon. and gallant Gentlemen opposite have said, because they speak out of their experience, but it surprises me a little to hear that in wartime, if a particular unit happened to be surrounded, and in danger not only of defeat but of destruction, officers and men in that depleted unit would reject reinforcements because the cap badge was not the same as that of the unit itself. I am surprised to hear that. I would have supposed that a depleted unit in those abject and distressed circumstances would have been only too glad to accept reinforcements from whatever quarter they came, and irrespective of the particular regiment.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: The right hon. Gentleman will perhaps admit that the situation just referred to is an exception. Quite clearly, exceptional circumstances demand exceptional measures. In the circumstances which I cited and to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, it was the general rule. We heard it every month and every year.

Mr. Shinwell: It may well be that the cross-postings were too frequent, and were undertaken without careful consideration and without imagination.
There is another matter to which I must direct attention. I hope that I can dispose on this occasion of the argument that has been adduced over and over again in connection with Regular recruitment. What do hon. and gallant Gentlemen opposite say? Indeed, it is their trump card in the submission of their proposed new Clause. They say: "This cross-posting, if it is applied, will have an adverse effect upon recruitment.

Already, because there was cross-posting during the late war, recruitment for the Regular Army has been affected."
What are the facts? They have been stated over and over again. I have stated them, and my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary has stated them. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence has stated them, and they have been stated over and over again outside. The fact is that recruiting for the Regular Army during the inter-war years, from the end of the first world war until the end of 1939, was very favourable indeed, I am speaking globally, and not as regards particular arms. Hon. Members opposite must not deny that because the facts are against them. I gave the figures only a few nights ago in my speech on the Estimates. They show pretty conclusively that the recruiting figures compare favourably with those in the inter-war years.

5.30 p.m.

Major Legge-Bourke: The figures which the right hon. Gentleman gave in the Debate included the bounty men. If he subtracts the figures of those men from those of men enlisting on normal engagement, he will find that the normal engagement figure is exactly what it was before the war.

Mr. Shinwell: Every time we dispute statements by hon. Members opposite they come up smiling again with some new argument. They now admit that recruitment figures for the Regular Army since the end of the last war are at any rate as good as, certainly not worse, than, in the inter-war years. Now we are told by the hon. and gallant Member that that does not take into account the number of men who engage for short service. The fact is that they are Regular recruits. Although I should naturally prefer these men to enlist for longer service, nevertheless they have enlisted as Regular recruits in the British Army.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: May I ask a question?

Mr. Shinwell: We are dealing with the subject of recruits. I understand that the hon. Member is not offering himself.

Mr. Hughes: Do not the figures for recruits which the Secretary of State has given to the House, include those for the women's Services?

ROYAL ASSENT

5.32 p.m.

Whereupon, the GENTLEMAN USHER OF THE BLACK ROD, being come with a Message, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair.

Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went: and having returned—

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Consolidated Fund (No. 1) Act, 1949.
2. Tenancy of Shops (Scotland) Act, 1949.
3. Public Works (Festival of Britain) Act, 1949.

ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL

Again considered in Committee.

Question again proposed, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

5.44 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: Before I leave the subject of Regular recruitment I wish to qualify what I have already said by making this observation. It must not be assumed from what I have said about the rate of Regular recruitment that I am satisfied. Far from it. We must build up the Regular Army, first of all, because of our heavy commitments overseas and also because we must maintain a proper balance.
It is suggested by hon. and gallant Members opposite that one of the principle reasons why officers and men have resigned in recent months is because of cross-posting. This matter has been very carefully analysed at the War Office, and I am able to say that it does not have the deleterious effect that some hon. Members suppose. It may well be that some officers, because of their past experience, have expressed their discontent by resignation, but, generally speaking, I would say that it has no adverse effect at all.
What is the case for the War Office? First of all, last year when the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill was proceeding through Committee, the Clause, or rather the Amendment which provided for the vesting of power in the Army Council

to transfer men, was accepted. Secondly, since that Amendment was incorporated in the Army and Air Force (Annual) Act we have not found it necessary to use those powers. Thirdly, there is no hardship on the soldier because of these provisions, owing to the fact that when he voluntarily enlists in the Regular Army he accepts these conditions. The right of the War Office to transfer men from one group to another or, for that matter, from one regiment to another, is part of the contract into which the man enters voluntarily. He knows what he is doing, or at any rate he is expected to know what he is doing. In those circumstances it can hardly be alleged to constitute a hardship on the man if subsequently it is found necessary, in exceptional circumstances, to apply the provision.

Mr. Scollan: A young man coming along to join the Army, probably imbued with the traditions of his forefathers, may wish to join a particular regiment, say the Gordon Highlanders, which was a very popular regiment in Scotland for many years and is, I have no doubt, still popular. Is the Minister telling us that that recruit knows perfectly well that he is not joining the Gordon Highlanders, but that he is joining the Army, and may be sent anywhere? I do not think we can accept that.

Mr. Shinwell: I am not suggesting anything of the sort. If the boy has ordinary intelligence he knows he is joining the regiment of his choice. It may be the Gordon Highlanders or some other regiment—the Royal Artillery or the Royal Signals, or R.E.M.E. or the Ordnance. But, having joined the regiment or unit of his choice, he accepts the conditions, as a result of which subsequently, in exceptional circumstances, and only under the direction and supervision of a member of the Army Council—which is a very effective safeguard—he can be transferred to another unit That is the position, and in spite of that condition men have continued to enlist.
The hon. Member for Southern Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) asked why this provision has not been used since last year. He asked why it was that we had demanded these powers and yet had failed to use them? He added the question, "Is the emergency more grave today than it was last year?" Who says


the emergency is more grave? It is the Opposition who have declared that the emergency is more grave, but whether we accept that or not is beside the point. In our judgment, as long as the emergency exists there is the possibility of trouble breaking out.
We must be prepared. In those circumstances we must retain the right, even if we use it sparingly and only under the most careful safeguards, to transfer men from one group to another. Otherwise, sooner or later the Army will be still more unbalanced than it now is, and I must confess that there is some disequilibrium at the moment which we are trying to correct. The Army will become still more unbalanced and we shall be in a worse position than now, and that we are seeking to avoid.
I give an assurance to the Committee. I gave assurances last year that we should be very careful in the use of these powers, and so careful have we been that we have not used them at all. I do not know that I can do better than that. But while I seek to retain these powers—and I am subject to expert advice which I cannot possibly ignore—at the same time I give an assurance to hon. Members in all parts of the Committee that these powers will only be exercised in the most exceptional circumstances and, if possible, we shall not apply them at all.
There is only one further point I wish to make. The hon. Member for North Blackpool (Mr. Low), who speaks so amiably that I find it almost impossible to resist his appeal, spoke about the need for retaining the traditional spirit in British regiments. I entirely agree with him. So far as it is possible to retain that spirit, we shall certainly do so. I give him that assurance. I have no doubt that my successors will do precisely as I have done, whoever they may be and whether they come from that side of the Committee or this, although I have a shrewd suspicion that for a long period of years they will be from this side of the Committee. Be that as it may, there is no politics in this matter. Where the British Army is concerned, we are all anxious to safeguard its traditions and its spirit, and I am satisfied that nothing will go wrong.
Finally, I must reply to the hon. Member who deplored the lack of spirit in the British Army. I reject that sug-

gestion emphatically. There is more spirit in the British Army, I believe, than in any other army in the world. That spirit is being manifested today in Malaya in most difficult circumstances. It is also being expressed in other parts of the world. The spirit of the British Army is all right. I hope that no one will traduce that spirit but will seek to fortify it. [interruption.] I wish to say to my hon. Friends that it is all very well to sneer at the British Army. We may require to use it on some occasion.

Mr. Scollan: I am not sneering at the British Army. I was saying that the British Army is all right: it is the brass hats who are all wrong.

Mr. Shinwell: Perhaps I can sit down after saying that I have had experience of working with the so-called brass hats for the past 18 months and I had some experience of working with them in 1929. I have also had the experience of working with other people, and I would rather work with the brass hats at the War Office than with some of the brass faces in other spheres of life. [Laughter.] Now that the Committee is completely restored to an amiable frame of mind, I hope that hon. Members opposite will not press this matter.

Mr. Harold Macmillan: The interposition of Black Rod and the visit to another place has had the somewhat gratifying effect on the right hon. Gentleman that visits to the Upper House often have upon hon. Members opposite. When they become permanent Members they become very mild.
However, the right hon. Gentleman in the earlier part of his speech made some observations which caused us on this side of the Committee a good deal of anxiety. I had intended to intervene for the purpose of explaining why I thought that it would be my duty to advise my hon. and right hon. Friends to carry this matter to a Division. I feel it necessary to say something about the expressions which the Minister allowed himself to make. The latter part of his speech was much more in line with what we hoped he would say, and the assurance he has given is one which I hope my hon. and right hon. Friends will take into full account in reaching their decision. He has told us that these powers which were absolutely vital to restore the balance of


an unbalanced Army were not in fact used last year. It is doubtful whether they will be used this year. Perhaps they may never be used. Why they should be so necessary in that event, we are still left a little bit to wonder.
I should like to revert to what he said at the beginning of his speech. I am sure that he said it in a friendly and facetious mood, but I think that what he said about the tradition of our infantry regiments, when it goes abroad, may do considerable harm if uncorrected. He appeared to throw a good deal of amusement and even contempt upon the Territorial tradition of British regiments.

Mr. Shinwell: No. I am sorry if the right hon. Gentleman has thus misconstrued my observations. If that was the impression he gained, I want to assure him that it was not my intention.

Mr. Macmillan: The right hon. Gentleman pointed out, with a certain truth, that Scottish regiments are full of Cockneys and the Durham Light Infantry are now largely not recruited from Durham. All these things if true are very lamentable. They are very great errors. My hon. Friends placed this new Clause upon the Paper to reinforce once more our view that in the corps of infantry—in any infantry regiment, in particular in the corps whose contribution to warfare is of a very special kind—the regimental tradition is an absolutely vital element to success in battle.
It is perfectly true, and the right hon. Gentleman was right to point it out, that the regimental tradition is not necessarily founded solely upon a territorial basis. It is based partly upon territorial tradition and partly upon regimental tradition. Let us take the Brigade of Guards which is a very good example. Two regiments have no territorial affiliation and three regiments have a great territorial affiliation. Then there is a functional regimental system like the green jackets or light infantry; finally there is the old county regiment which has a wholly territorial basis. Both of these streams enter into the long tradition of the British regimental system. My hon. Friends did not oppose the system of grouping because we have now had to accept it. Personally, I regret that it has been necessary, but it is apparently essential.

Nevertheless, since we cannot keep the old regiments, let us at least keep the groups intact. That is vital.
The purpose of maintaining an Army, as the right hon. Gentleman rightly said, is not merely in order to have something in peace. It is also to make it available, if necessary, to defend the nation in war. What has worried me and my hon. Friends who have observed what has happened in two wars is a certain tendency of elements in the Army and in the High Command which, I believe, has for a long time been adverse to our regimental system. Adjutants-General who have not been infantry officers have sometimes held this opinion very strongly. We have suspected that they would like to abolish the regimental system and set up an infantry corps in which all infantrymen would be members of a single unit without a regimental association. I believe that to be absolutely fatal in war.
6.0 p.m.
If I may be allowed a personal reminiscence, one of the major reasons for the success of Field-Marshal Alexander as a commander was that he was one of the great commanders who served through the whole of the first war as a regimental officer, starting as an ensign and ending as a battalion commander. He never served in any other capacity, and, when he came to hold his high command, which he held with absolutely unbroken success throughout the war, even when faced with the most terrible situations—Dunkirk, Burma and the position of Egypt—the final triumph of his arms was due very largely to the fact that he knew the life and character of the ordinary soldier in war better than any other living officer. I remember, during the Italian campaign, under the pressure of war, these emergency powers, which are necessary in order to make transfers at such a time, enabled transfers to be made by the command in an absolutely unjustifiable way. Because they had the power, they posted anybody anywhere they liked, without the slightest regard to the regimental system.
I make these observations because I knew the Field-Marshal very well then, and he devoted himself, during the periods between his operations, to getting the Army sorted out again according to where the men belonged. He took infinite trouble to undo the harm that


had been done by the Adjutant-General's Department, and that was one of the major reasons why that very small number of British divisions—and it was a very small number in that campaign—was able to fight the long and continuous battles, under terrible pressure with heavy casualties and under bad conditions, which are equal in their splendour to the greatest feats of arms of the British Army in history.
When we consider what the infantry had to do during the critical moment of great battles, anyone with experience of war knows that a man is placed in a position in which he can either do his full duty absolutely to the limit—he may do it more or less, or, perhaps without observation, he can shirk it. Anybody who has been in a war knows that. What is it that makes men do that extra bit in courage and tenacity to hold on to ground, to hold a position which is untenable and sell their lives—and we have known of cases in which every man did it? It is the fact that they have been with their own friends, either from the same village or township or from the place where they worked together, and that they have followed the regiment from the first day on which they joined it and have been taught that it had a regimental tradition that it was never expected to give way. It is that tradition which has enabled men to hold on in terrible conditions and to do even more than their duty, and everyone in this House who has had any experience of war knows it to be the case.
This has been a useful Debate, and we accept the assurance which the right hon. Gentleman has given, and I ask my hon. Friends not to divide on this issue. I should like this to be a universal appeal from this House to ask the right hon. Gentleman and those in high command not to be too quick to take the purely easy way and think of men as mere numbers to be moved about. If they are infantry men, it should be remembered that they have this special function and a particular task to do in the event of war, which in no other part of the Army is quite the same. Let us remember this regimental system, encouraging loyalty between comrades and this sense of duty which holds a man to fulfil his highest duty even at terrible times. If this message could go from this House today, I

should prefer it, so that we may, in the same spirit as that which has prevailed throughout the Debate, offer it for the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman and his professional advisers.

Mr. Low: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Preamble agreed to.
Bill reported without Amendment, read the Third time, and passed.

AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Clause4.—(PAYMENTS BY MINISTER IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION SERVICES.)

6.6 p.m.

Major Sir Thomas Dugdale: I beg to move, in page 4, line 23, to leave out subsection (3).
In Committee we had considerable discussion on Clause 4 of this Bill and the right hon. Gentleman said that he would look at the position again before we came to the Report stage. Accordingly, I move this Amendment in the hope that the Minister may have had second thoughts and that he will now see his way to delete subsection (3). In Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary, in replying to the Debate, said:
It is not our intention to use these powers, and, in fact, we never shall."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 3rd March. 1949; c. 60.]
It is this kind of legislation which we on this side of the House find so objectionable. First, power is taken for the express purpose of accomplishing certain things, and then we are told by the Minister that he has no intention of using the powers conferred by the Bill. We feel that the powers given here are much too wide. They give the Minister of Agriculture, for example, the power to direct a farmer on what kind of bull he should use. They also give him power to give directions to the artificial insemination centres, whether aided by the State or otherwise, so that a private insemination centre which caters for the most part for dairy cattle may be directed


by the Minister, under subsection (3), to bring into that centre, possibly at great expense, a beef bull. We hope the Minister has seen fit to review the position and, although the Parliamentary Secretary has told us that it is not the Government's intention to use these powers at all, we feel that it would be better if this subsection was deleted from the Bill.

Mr. Hurd: I beg to second the Amendment.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): It is true that during the Committee stage I promised the right hon. and gallant Member for Gains-borough (Captain Crookshank) that I would look at this subsection again. I was not sure at that time just what the position would be with regard to the original purchase of the bull, or the provision for depreciation, and so forth; but I am now satisfied that there is ample room for this subsection in the Bill. It was, in fact, included because of a statement I made in August, 1947, when announcing the expansion programme, to the effect that there would be maintained a free service from beef bulls at artificial insemination centres, at least from 31st March, 1949.
The preceding subsections of the Clause provide that the Minister shall defray all expenses in providing such a service, and the present subsection has been included in order that there may be something on the Statute Book indicating that such a service shall be provided in centres where reasonably practicable. The safety valves for those who run centres are contained in Clause 4 (la), where it is clearly pointed out that whatever fee may normally be charged, that fee will be paid by His Majesty's Government.
Clause 4 (1, b) provides for a supplementary grant to be paid should that be necessary. Depreciation, the original cost of the bull, and the amount allocated for depreciation are, I think, on generous lines, but in any case those who run the centre could not by any stretch of the imagination be forced to lose money. The arrangement is that when those in charge of the centre purchase the appropriate bull for this purpose, depreciation is allowed at the rate of 40 per cent. for a two-and-a-half-year life of activity,

and subsection (1, b) makes it quite clear that should those running the centre be involved in any expenditure in excess of what a 25s. fee would cover, then the Treasury will be responsible for it.
The services so far run by the Milk Marketing Board have been very successful, and the general policy has, I believe, proved more than worth while, since we have well over 360,000 more one-year-old calves than we had when the announcement was made in August, 1947. Therefore, as there is no possibility of inflicting injury upon any section of the community, even by direction, I hope that the hon. and gallant Member for Richmond (Sir T. Dugdale) will not feel disposed to press the Amendment.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman referred to a direction being given as to the extent and nature of the service to be provided by beef bulls. The three breeds already chosen—to which I referred in Committee—are Aberdeen Angus, Galloways, and Herefords, because they are animals which clearly mark their progeny. That is the only service referred to in the Bill. I repeat, therefore, that I hope the hon. and gallant Member will not feel disposed to press this Amendment.
Amendment negatived.

Clause 8.—(PROVISIONS AS TO TRAINING FOR AGRICULTURAL OCCUPATIONS.)

6.15 p.m.

Sir T. Dugdale: I beg to move, in page 6, line 35, to leave out "by other persons."
The object of this Amendment is to elicit a little further information from the Minister as to the purposes of Clause 8 and as to the progress made in training men for agricultural occupations. During the Committee stage it was brought out that under this Clause there is a sum of roughly £300,000 a year which can be used for this purpose. The Minister explained that the reason for inserting the provision in this Bill was to provide facilities—similar to those provided for ex-Service men—for people other than ex-Service men; in other words, to extend the scope to giving training outside the agricultural industry in the countryside in the hope that the people concerned might eventually settle down in the countryside.
I am sure the House would be interested to know exactly what progress has been made and what is in the mind of the Minister in regard to the operation of this Clause. We are not in any way opposed to the principle of these trainees in the countryside, but we feel that unless the scheme is very well organised, there is a chance of great wastage both of time and public money. In the first instance, how many of these trainees have, up to now, been taken on in a particular hostel? Are they people who have come out of neighbouring cities, and are they centred in hostels about the country or sent to individual farms? Can the Minister inform the House what percentage of these people, after completing their period of training, have actually remained in the agricultural industry and found permanent employment in agriculture with a view to making the work their career?
I think the House will also be interested to know from what particular section of the population these trainees are drawn. Are they people who are at present out of work, or are they, for the most part, people who are attracted to the countryside and desire facilities to train in agriculture? Finally, is any particular set of regulations laid down as to the period during which they are given training in the countryside, and what is the cost per head of this training which will fall on public funds?

Mr. Hurd: I beg to second the Amendment.
We have no quarrel at all with providing training facilties for men outside agriculture, indeed, outside the villages altogether, and to their coming into agriculture. In our view, it is vital that we should have a two-way flow between town and country and country and town. Therefore, we are wholeheartedly in support of the idea of this Clause. I wish to ask the Minister how, in the light of the experience of his Ministry since the war in training men coming out of the Services, he considers the training covered by this Clause can best be given. Personally, I should not like to see the men kept in gangs, or even in groups, all the time they were training because that may develop in them the gang mentality which is something we are trying to get away from in agriculture.
We want to see young men from the towns coming into agriculture, taking jobs on individual farms and becoming established as regular farm workers on those farms or, if they wish to move on to another farm, doing so—in other words, having a regular attachment to the industry and not merely being floating gang labour, a good deal of which we have had in agriculture in recent years. I ask the Minister if he will bear that in mind. It may be done more easily if these men are trained under the auspices of somebody like the Y.M.C.A. who have young boys from the towns. I have had two on my farm; one was a success and the other was not. It may be easier if they are sponsored by some organisation such as that, rather than by the officers of the county agricultural executive committee. I want the Minister to tell us what he considers to be the best way of training these men to make regular farm workers.

Mr. Tolley: I find it difficult to understand the attitude adopted by hon. Members opposite. As I see it, this is another step, and a much needed step, in the right direction of producing those who, after receiving training, will be needed in the tremendous increase in the service which, I believe, will be apparent in the immediate future. We want this service to be one in which those engaged in it are most highly skilled. Why leave out the phrase "by other persons"? Do we not want to increase the scope and the possibilities of giving education and training to people who take up various aspects of agriculture, and this aspect in particular? I ask hon. Members opposite not to press this to a Division because of the need which might exist in the immediate future when there might perhaps be lacking in this service men of skill and knowledge who will be badly needed. The Minister gave an assurance upstairs in connection with this—

Sir T. Dugdale: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but really he has not listened to a word said on this side of the House. The whole purpose of this Amendment is to get more detailed information, because we believe the scheme is such an important one and the House has not had an opportunity of being given information by the Government.

Mr. Tolley: As I read the words in the Amendment put down by hon. Members opposite, they distinctly say—and this is what hon. Members require should happen—"leave out 'by other persons'." Yet I am challenged with not having listened to the Debate so far. The words will just make nonsense.

Captain Crookshank: That is often the case when they are not related to the Statute.

Mr. Tolley: Very often, I agree, from that side of the House. It appears to me that there was no need at all for the Opposition to put this Amendment down. In other words, this is only time-wasting.

Mr. David Renton: I think the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Tolley) for some reason or other—I cannot imagine what—is not being quite fair to my hon. Friends. These words do not make very much difference either way, but a very convenient way of trying to obtain some elucidation, is to put down an Amendment to see whether the words should be left in the Clause or not. So far as I understand, that is the only purpose of this Amendment, and there is no doubt whatever that the Clause needs elucidation.
I ask the Minister to make the Clause clear, because what is envisaged in it, in my submission, means one of three things. First, the Minister is extending the work which already has been going on for quite a while but which can be carried very much further—in other words, the work which is being done by the farm institutes and the county councils. It is possible that that is what is meant. Secondly, he has in mind something to implement the Education Act, 1944, in regard to further training after school. If that is so, no doubt he will be doing what he proposes to do here—whatever it may be—in conjunction with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Education, and, indeed, one hopes that that may be so. On the other hand, the Minister may have a third possibility in mind, which might be a sort of compromise between the two schemes to which I have referred or a dovetailing of them. Let him make it quite plain which of those three things is meant. It is possible that the Bill means all three, but let us know
There is a reference in the Clause to the Treasury and to what is always, I

believe, even now, the difficult task of obtaining Treasury sanction. Can the Minister tell us what sort of sums he knows the Treasury are likely to be able to approve within the first 12 months after the passing of this Bill? Without some kind of indication as to the sums involved, to the nearest £50,000, shall we say, it is very difficult to envisage whether the Minister, through this Clause, is merely embarking upon something very small or is embarking upon something very big, as should be done.
There is no doubt that if the high hopes held by hon. Members on all sides of the House for the future of British farming are to be realised, very much training will be necessary. It will not be sufficient—and here I differ slightly from my hon. Friends—merely for a young man to be attached for a period of practical training on a farm. In many cases that is highly desirable, but if the degree of scientific and mechanised farming which is to be aimed at is to be achieved, then I think something in the nature of at least elementary mechanical and scientific training will be needed as well. I think that can be given only at an organised establishment. The Minister, no doubt, has some views upon this matter and we should be interested to hear them.

Colonel Gomne-Duncan: In asking the Minister for information on this Clause, I should like to know whether it is a fact—and I presume it is—that a considerable number of these establishments have been established up and down the country. If so, I might, perhaps, very briefly give a note upon what has happened to one of these camps in my own constituency, very nearly next door to myself. On 8th February the Secretary of State for Scotland was asked what were:
…the maximum, minimum and present number of inmates in the camp for agricultural workers at Forgandenny, Perthshire; what, since inception, are the equivalent numbers of staff to look after them; and what, since inception, has been the average number of inmates regularly employed on agricultural work outside the camp."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th February, 1949; Vol. 461, c. 186.]
That is exactly the type of information which we are hoping to get as a result of moving this Amendment. The figures in this case—and I hope that the Minister, in his reply, can give some happier figures—were that the maximum


at any time in that camp since the inception, which was in February, 1948, was only 25. I understand that these boys or young men were drawn from the city of Dundee. No doubt other camps in other parts of the country hope to tap the cities and to attract young men from the cities to agricultural work. The minimum number in the camp at any time was only four and the maximum number of hostel staff employed at any one time was six. At one time there were six staff and four people to be looked after. The average number of agricultural workers hired out to farmers to date—and this is a very important point—was only between eight and nine.
The fact is that that camp, which was well thought-out, and a good little camp, and which had good officials to run it—the man in charge and his staff were good, I think—did not produce what was wanted by the farmers in the countryside. There is no doubt that, with one or two exceptions, the cases of most of those boys must be regarded as complete failures. We all hope to see more people back on the land, and we all hope to see this type of people finding a livelihood on the land, and a way of life in which they can grow up and in which they can do well, but the result of the work in this camp is most depressing. I hope the Minister will be able to give us some figures for some other parts of the country that will be brighter than those for this place.
6.30 p.m.
The reason the farmers were disappointed is not that they did not want the labour, for they wanted it very much, but that this camp had previously had German prisoners of war, who were first-class labourers on the land, and the farmers were hoping to obtain from the new scheme people to take the places of the German prisoners. Unfortunately, the results were not satisfactory. It is no good making any bones about it. There was complete failure in that camp, and it was very irksome to the farmers, to say the least of it, to be compelled to pay the wages for these people and to get such very poor results in work from them. In saying this, I am not saying anything against the staff. I think it is of great importance that we should know what has been the result of these schemes. Have they been a success?

Have they been a partial success? Or have they been a failure?

Mr. Vane: If the right hon. Gentleman is thinking of where these men are to live, I suggest they should not live in hostels and hutted camps, because though there may be more accommodation there, I am sure they are not good places for the trainees. Exceptions apart, I think there are a number of men living in them who will not be the best influence on these new entrants into the industry. I would ask him to bear in mind the districts in England where the living-in system still persists, such as the North-West. It is probably a good one. By that system we put two men together to live with a farmer's family. The system is slowly passing out, but for this purpose I suggest that it is excellent. The trainee can live on the farm and learn part of his job there, and get all the extra tuition from the county farming institute. I am sure that if we build up on the intimate family foundation such as that, instead of an hostel life, it will be much better—so far as the domestic service is concerned, of which we heard strange stories earlier today.

Mr. T. Williams: I hope to be able to clarify the mind of the hon. and gallant Member for Richmond (Sir T. Dugdale) and the minds of other hon. Members at the same time.

Captain Crookshank: And that of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Tolley) most of all.

Mr. Williams: The words "other persons" in the Clause simply mean that the Minister may either himself provide for training or he can make provision to assist other persons who are carrying on training. In other words, what we had in mind was to continue to do what we had been doing previously, by assisting the Y.M.C.A., who give short periods of training, largely to young lads from urban areas. They have received an Exchequer grant towards the cost. That is exactly what "other persons" means. The approximate cost for each boy trained for agriculture by the Y.M.C.A. is about £20 per annum. We are aiming at something like 1,000 urban boys per annum, assuming that the Y.M.C.A. can cope with that number, and the figures at the moment are running at between 600 and 800 at any time.
I was asked a question about the ex-Service men and that kind of training. That is clearly outside the scope of the Bill. If it is of any interest to hon. Members, however, I can say we have trained 5,000 ex-Service men and women for work on the land, and they are now, I hope, really making good. The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) asked me about the cost. Had I any idea in mind, he asked. It is clear to me that the hon. Member could not have read the Financial Memorandum fronting the original Bill, for had he done so he would have seen that our estimated expenditure on this service was of the order of £300,000 per annum.
There can be two forms of training. A boy—an urban boy—desiring a rural life can be placed with an approved farmer for a few months, then be engaged permanently by some other farmer, if not retained by the first. Or the boys can be trained by the Y.M.C.A. For adult labour it is not our intention—and it never was our intention—to use hostels. It is our intention to arrange with approved farmers, selected largely by the county agricultural executive committees, the placing of trainees, and we accept responsibility for most of the wages for three months, six months, nine months, until at the end of one year we regard the trainee as a fully trained person. I hope no hostel will be necessary for training of that kind. There will be that intimate, family understanding between the farmer doing the training and the trainee, and we are hoping that because of that intimacy we shall recruit a large number of persons who are anxious for a life on the land.
There remains one other question, that asked me by the hon. and gallant Member for Perth (Colonel Gomme-Duncan), who spoke about hostels or a hostel in Scotland. Prisoner of war labour or gang labour does not come within the four corners of Clause 8 of the Bill. It is a totally different undertaking altogether from training men from urban areas for a rural life in the manner I have described by sending them to approved farmers, or through the agency of the Y.M.C.A. I hope that the hon. and gallant Member for Richmond will see exactly what these words mean, and will not press his Amendment.

Mr. Baldwin: I am sorry I did not catch your eye, Sir, before the Minister spoke, because I wanted to ask him one question. Are the trainees who come into the industry subject to direction compulsorily to remain in the industry? I am one of those who think that it is quite wrong that a man should be compelled to stay in agriculture if he would rather go to some other work.

Mr. T. Williams: Before the hon. Gentleman proceeds with his directions or suggestions of directions, I think I ought to tell him that there is no intention to direct anybody here.

Mr. Baldwin: What I am trying to get at is this. Can they be compelled to remain in the industry once they come in? Can they be compelled by a control of engagement order, for instance? I think the Minister ought to take the matter up with the Minister of Labour, because this compelling of lads to remain in the, industry if they wish to leave it will stop others from coming along for training. I agree with what has been said from both sides of the House, that we want more people in the industry, and that we also want more of the old, skilled craftsmen. The one thing we are losing from the industry today is the skill of that kind of man, who knows how to do the job and to do it properly. I hope that, when the Minister advises the county committees about where these trainees should be put, he will go a little farther and see that they go not only to competent farmers, but to farms where there are old, skilled craftsmen still left. I think it is well worth while paying those skilled men a certain bonus for the trouble they have to take in teaching other men their jobs.

Captain Crookshank: Can the Minister clear up that point?

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Thomas Fraser): It is out of Order.

Captain Crookshank: It is not for the hon. Gentleman to tell me whether it is out of Order or not. I know that he knows a great many things, but I prefer to rely upon your directions in this matter, Mr. Speaker.
The point which the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) was making was related to helping the potential training of men and women—because I


imagine that girls come into this as well—for work on the land. The position which my hon. Friend was trying to get cleared up concerned what the Minister of Labour called the other night, if I may hark back to another Debate, the "ring fence." In agriculture as in mining, there is a ring fence and those in this industry are allowed to move from one farmer's employ to another, but they may not leave the industry as a whole.
The point is at what stage, if any, does a trainee jump over the fence or into the ring? If he is to be accounted as within the scope of the Control of Engagement Order, and within the ring from the moment he starts his training, it is quite possible that that may be a deterrent, because after a short period of training he may decide that it is not the kind of life he wants. It would probably be better if there were no dubiety about it, and that the ring should not be considered as entered until after a training period. So far, we have not heard about this, one way or another. The House will be grateful to my hon. Friend for having raised the point. I am merely following it up in order to get some reply from the Minister. If he has to consult his right hon. Friend, perhaps he will take some other occasion of allowing us to raise this matter again, such as by giving a reply to an agreed question.

Mr. T. Williams: I can only reply with the leave of the House. The answer is that no person will be tied to the industry while he is passing through a course of training. We may take a number of young men who want to live in rural Britain and become agricultural workers, and it may be that after several months it is found that their physical qualities are not up to it. We certainly should not attempt to hold them within the confines of the industry in that case. I cannot imagine anyone being held in the industry until he is completely trained.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 12.—(POWER TO DISPOSE OF MACHINERY ACQUIRED UNDER AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1939.)

Mr. York: I beg to move, in page 9, line 40, after "him," to insert "by public auction."
The Clause, as amended, would read:
… may be disposed of by him by public auction…

As I understand the present position, when these machines, purchased under the 1939 Act, are no longer required by the county committees, they are disposed of in the following way. First, they are offered to the manufacturers or to the machinery merchants or to the contractors who have been using them, and if none of those authorities requires the machines, they are then sold to the farming community by public auction. I also understand that this is the same general procedure as is outlined in the White Paper on the disposal of Government stores. I do not consider that is a satisfactory method of dealing with these machines. The farmers are very much concerned and dissatisfied with the proposition because they feel that whereas the dealers and contractors are getting the best machines, they are only given the chance of getting the dud machines which are of little or no further use. Therefore, we say that the whole disposal policy now requires revision and alteration.
6.45 p.m.
I can illustrate my meaning by giving some figures of recent disposals which have taken place. In regard to this particular transaction 3,000 tractors were for disposal. I dare say that many of them were not bought under the 1939 Act, but I presume that the figures will be comparable. Of those 3,000 machines, 132 were sold to the agricultural contractors who were using them at the time. That I consider to be perfectly legitimate. It is, however, a very small proportion. Five hundred and seventy were sold to dealers and agricultural machinery merchants. These would be the best machines out of the whole 3,000, and the remainder—presumably those that were in such poor condition that the machinery merchants did not require them—were sold by public auction.
I was also given some figures for implements which correspond very closely with the figures which I have just given. In each case, the agricultural merchants were getting the pick of the litter, and the farmers were then allowed to scramble for the rest. We ask for a review of this policy, so as to give everybody concerned a fair chance to buy not only worn-out machines but those which have some chance of a fairly long and useful life in the future.

Mr. Baldwin: I beg to second the Amendment.
Perhaps it may be thought that I am supporting it because public auctions were part of my livelihood at one time. That is not so. I do so because I think that putting these articles up for auction disposes of anything that may be said about somebody "working" something. There is always the danger when private sales take place that someone may or may not receive something from a person who wants to get possession of a machine, and there are always plenty of people who will say that that is taking place, whether it is correct or not. If the machines are put up for sale by public auction, it gives everyone the same opportunity to bid for them. I would go further than my hon. Friend and say that all these machines, whether used by contractors or not, should be put up for sale, and if the contractors wanted to buy them, they would have the opportunity of doing so. Who is to decide which contractor shall have his machine and at what price? There is no better way of testing the value of any machine or any other article than by putting it up for public auction and disposing of it to the highest bidder.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. George Brown): May I make it quite clear that this Clause relates only to the very limited number of tractors and implements which are still left to us and which were bought under the 1939 Act? In fact, because the war came so soon after the passage of that Act, very little was ever bought. It was only a matter of 665 tractors and 500 two- and three-furrow ploughs that were bought. Most of these have now gone out of the picture altogether and all that the Clause does is to give legislative authority to dispose of the remainder. When the power was obtained there was a good deal of fear expressed by those who represented the trade that if a lot of stuff were bought under the Act and put on the market at some time, that could easily depress the whole market, to the disadvantage of the industry itself. Therefore, an undertaking was given not to dispose of it without legislative authority being obtained from this House. Although there is not very much of it left, it is for that purpose that we have now come to the House with this provision.
Much of the Debate has been about the way in which we dispose of the machinery, whether it be the limited quantity to which this Clause relates or the machinery we have been buying under the war-time general powers. I must remind the House, and particularly hon. Members opposite, that we are operating the policy laid down in 1944 in the White Paper on the disposal of Government stores. Quite apart from anything else, it would be very difficult indeed for us to go back on that arrangement, which was come to after discussion, and clearly accepted by the House, for the Government's buying policy. It would be very difficult to lay down a policy on disposal to everybody's satisfaction at the time of buying, and then to go back on it at the time of disposal. That would not be regarded as a particularly good thing to do.
There was one thing in the speech of the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) which rather interested me. We must be clear about this. The hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. York) used the phrase: "The merchants get the pick of the litter, leaving the farmers to scramble for the rest," whereas the hon. Member for Leominster used some such phrase as, "We want the farmers to get it all."

Mr. Baldwin: No, I did not. The Parliamentary Secretary must not misrepresent me. I did not say anything of the sort. I said I wanted all the public—whether contractors, farmers or whoever it may be—to have the same opportunities.

Mr. Brown: Let the hon. Member not get hot under the collar. The only people who will use these machines are farmers, not the general public. The point I make is that merchants do not buy these tractors to hide away in some corner for themselves; they buy the better machines, which are capable of being repaired and then re-issued.

Mr. York: Resold?

Mr. Brown: Yes, resold at a controlled price, with a guarantee. The farmer who buys what we have to sell by public auction takes a chance on what he gets, but the farmer who buys the machines taken up by the merchants gets a rebuilt, guaranteed product for considerably less than the list price—60 per cent. is the maximum at which it can be done;


he gets a machine which carries with it a written guarantee, so that he knows where he stands. I should have thought that as much of this machinery as will stand being reconditioned and put into good order should be sold in that way.
In this House we do not speak very much about conversations we have with each other around the Palace of Westminster, but a conversation I had is relevant in this connection. The other day I had a discussion with an hon. and gallant Member who happens to be connected with a firm of implement makers, who told me how difficult it is when implements are put on the market by public auction, bought by some farmer who is badly in need of them, who then worries about the performance of the implements and goes to the makers for help. The hon. and gallant Member told me that was a constant worry to makers, and how much they would prefer to buy it all themselves, scrap it and so avoid that difficulty. The figures given by the hon. Member for Ripon show quite clearly that the overwhelming bulk are sold by public auction; such of the remainder as are capable of being turned into new machines and given a guarantee are so dealt with and sold at a very severely controlled price. We believe that, on the whole, that is the best policy. I hope that with that explanation the hon. Member will not feel inclined to press the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[Mr. G. Brown.]

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Hurd.

6.54 p.m.

Mr. Wilfrid Roberts: My complaint about this Bill is not so much to the Minister as to the Leader of the House. I was not able to attend any of the Committee stage, but I have read the Debates, and what was plain at the Second Reading became even plainer during the Committee stage.

Mr. Speaker: I am very sorry not to have stopped the hon. Member earlier, but my attention was directed to some other matter. I did not call Mr. Wilfrid Roberts; I called Mr. Hurd.

Mr. Roberts: I apologise, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Hurd: I thought I must have misheard you, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday I was stung by a bee; that affected my eyes, and I thought it must have affected my hearing, too.
I should like, on behalf of the Opposition, to say a few words of blessing to this Bill before it finally leaves us, because in our agricultural policy we are, happily, all able to agree today on the objectives, although we may have different ideas about the means of achieving those objectives. We on this side of the House wish the Government would begin to get away from the subsidy mentality. One of the objectives of this Bill is the rearing of more calves, which we hope will in due course of nature increase the ration of home-produced beef; and under this Bill we are putting £30 million in subsidy behind that effort. We are also putting £160,000 behind the encouragement of grass drying by cooperative societies, and particularly the Milk Marketing Board.
Those are desirable objectives: we want people to get ahead with grass drying and with rearing calves suitable for beef production, because today those calves are going for veal. However, we should prefer to see these arrangements and inducements given, as far as possible, through the annual price review. We have just seen the results of the annual price review for this year, in which the Government have wisely increased the price of fat pigs so as to make it worth while for the farmer to feed his own barley to fat pigs. I mention that because throughout our Debates on this Bill it has seemed to us that the Minister could, through the price mechanism, have given the necessary inducements for rearing more calves for beef production—calves which are now going for veal. Giving a subsidy like this is, of course, the easy way, the lazy way, which may be popular with many farmers; but that does necessarily mean that it is the right way.
I hope, too, as the subsidy on imported feedingstuffs is now being reduced, that the subsidy in this Bill for the encouragement of grass drying will not prove to be so necessary as it obviously was when imported feedingstuffs were kept artificially cheap. I think that there we are getting


on to a sounder basis, and are rating the feedingstuffs which compete with dried grass more nearly at their true value. I hope that under the scheme approved in this Bill the grass driers will be able to meet competition on a fair basis from similar feedingstuffs. I shall say no more, except to repeat that we are wholeheartedly in agreemnt with the provisions of this Bill, which we hope will achieve all the purposes the Minister has put before us, both here and in Committee, and that we shall get full co-operation from the farming community in making a success of it.

6.59 p.m.

Mr. W. Roberts: I begin by again apologising, Mr. Speaker, for having misheard you previously.
I was saying that my complaint would be better addressed perhaps to the Leader of the House. What became clear in Committee, and could have been seen on Second Reading, was that this Bill could not be amended because most of its provisions have already been in force for at least 18 months, and some of them for longer. That really makes a mockery of legislation. It is useless to argue with the Minister that he ought to make some alteration in a scheme for which he has already paid out the money. Although in some respects the Minister was obliging enough to say that in future he would consider the suggestions of hon. Members, he clearly could not make any alteration when, not only had he acted upon his scheme, but the Treasury had paid out money under the scheme. That does not seem to me to be the way that Parliament intended to work, and though it is not a very serious matter on this occasion quite a lot of money is involved. I hope the Minister, in bringing forward schemes in future, will give Parliament the opportunity of expressing an opinion before they are carried out, or in any case sooner than within 18 months.
Some money is wasted under this Bill. I do not think it is necessary to give a subsidy for dairy heifer cows, and nothing that the Minister said on Second Reading or that I can see was said in Committee suggests to me that it is necessary. Already distinctions are being made. It is possible not to give a subsidy to Channel Island bull calves, and it is also possible for the Minister to

differentiate between individual calves, to which his inspectors will not give a subsidy because for one reason or another they are unsuitable. Therefore, the argument that has been used from the Government side that they could not distinguish a dairy heifer calf from another calf seems to me to fall to the ground, because they are within the scheme making two distinctions.
I am representing the view of agriculturists when I say that this money given to the dairy heifer calves is a waste. If it is available for agriculture there are many other ways where it would have been better used, and as a subsidy it may not do good but possibly may do harm in that it will encourage dairy farmers to keep dairy heifers which will not make good beef or will not be good dairy animals, so that they may qualify for this subsidy. I hope that when the scheme is considered again this question will be viewed in that light, and this money used for a better purpose. With the general idea of a subsidy to increase the number of beef cattle in the country, I am in complete sympathy, and I am glad to know that the figures show there has been an increase in the number of calves and that the scheme has started so successfully.
There is also some waste of money in the grass drying scheme. I am not convinced that the Milk Marketing Board could not provide that service for their members without additional assistance. They have great resources, and I believe they could have provided this service. It may be that assistance for independent co-operative societies is right to encourage grass growing there, but I do not think an organisation as powerful and with the resources of the Milk Marketing Board needs this additional assistance. On the whole everybody welcomes this Bill, and but for these two criticisms I want to make it clear that in its general provisions I also welcome it.

7.4 p.m.

Mr. Gerald Williams: I must apologise that I was not able to be here when the first Amendment was discussed, but that discussion took place a little earlier than I had expected. I want to make a few remarks on Clause 4 (3), which we on this side of the House had hoped would be left out of the Bill. I shall confine my remarks to making


suggestions to the Minister as to the carrying out of this Clause, and I shall ask him to put my mind at rest on some of the things about which I am worried.
Under this Clause the Minister might possibly direct a private artificial insemination centre to purchase a bull. That centre may have no money and no credit at the bank, and even if it does not spell ruin for the centre it may cause great inconvenience and hardship. During the Committee stage the Minister replied to me:
The insemination centre, if obliged to buy a Hereford bull, would make the purchase, but we would have to be satisfied that it was reasonable and likely to give a good return as an investment, since the Department would have to pay the annual loss on the basis of depreciation, and would exercise very great care and discretion before giving directions to anyone under subsection (3)."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 3rd March, 1949; c. 63.]
Before giving directions to anybody under this subsection the Minister, I am sure, will take very great care. Although he may be going to pay the annual loss on depreciation, I do not know under what part of the Bill he pays that annual loss or whether he has any authority for saying that, but I do not question it, because I am sure he has the right. But although the Minister has to pay depreciation on the bull, what happens if a bull dies, becomes impotent or if there is a loss on its keep? The owner may be very much out of pocket. The Minister said that he will not direct an owner to purchase a bull unless it is an economic proposition, but the Minister may very well be wrong in his judgment.
When I brought this up in Committee the Minister said that the worries which I have were merely the figment of my imagination. My local Press described it as a bull fight between the Minister and myself. I am perfectly prepared to have a little fight over this Bill, because I am quite certain that what I say is correct. The Minister says that everything is going to be all right, and all I am going to ask him at this juncture is to give an assurance that all future Ministers will be just as careful as he says he is going to be.
I should like to mention one other point under this subsection and that refers to the Minister's power to direct the extent and nature of the service. The Minister said that he was not too happy

about this and would look into it. No doubt he has looked into it, but from what I gather I imagine that if a farmer has a good dairy cow he would refuse to give it a free service. On the other hand, if a farmer has a good beef animal not likely to produce milk he may insist on it having a free beef service. That again sounds perfectly all right, but I want to know who decides the issue. The Minister cannot be here, there and everywhere to say which cow shall have which service. I imagine it is left to his livestock officers, but how many livestock officers has the Minister got in each county? How often do they question the semen that is used in these artificial insemination centres and when do they do it? I am told on good authority that the only check they make is long after the service has taken place, and then it is only a very cursory check covering a very small percentage of the services. It is not very satisfactory as it stands, and I hope the Minister will improve the procedure.
With these few remarks I should like to add my blessing to the Bill. I am not very happy about the extremely large cost. Everybody who has been on the Standing Committee on this Bill knows that the calf subsidy will cost something like £7 million a year, out of which we all recognise that probably £5 million is being paid to people who would rear the calves already which is an extravagant proposition. The same applies to the free beef insemination service. Many farmers would be perfectly prepared to pay for that service which now they will get free. That, of course, is a very much smaller figure.
During the proceedings on the Bill no one has suggested any better ideas and for that reason I cannot be very severe in my criticism. It is vital to produce more beef. Owing to the muddle into which the Government have recently got us through the bulk purchase of meat in the Argentine when they swapped our railways without producing the meat, for that reason alone it is most important that the subsidy should be a success. In view of the large amount of money involved I hope that the Minister will treat this as a very temporary affair and that he will make it quite clear to the farmers that he will treat it as such.

7.11 p.m.

Mr. McKie: I am sure that the hon. Member for Tonbridge (Mr. G. Williams) will forgive me if I do not follow him in detail in the very interesting points he made in the earlier part of his speech. I was particularly glad to hear him stress, as did the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd), the importance of the first two Clauses. We cannot allow the Bill to leave us without emphasising this point. The hon. Member for Newbury urged the Government not to be "too subsidy-minded" and pointed out—I endorse what he said—that the calf subsidies which form the subject matter of the first two Clauses are not in themselves a long-term policy; they are only a palliative and no palliative can be a real remedy for what is now becoming a really serious position with regard to beef production in this country.
I represent a constituency in Southern Scotland, now very largely concerned with dairy production and, in the old days, very largely concerned with beef production as well. While I do not suggest that the policy with regard to milk, pursued not merely by this Government but also by its predecessors, has been wrong, we have gone rather far and our beef production has suffered, and as a result a very serious position confronts us. None of us can view the position calmly. I hope that the Government, and particularly the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, will take note of the warning of the hon. Member for Newbury. We are approaching a stage at which the Government will seriously have to think out a long-term policy about beef production and adjust the balance between milk and beef production in the country as a whole. I am glad that Clause 3, which deals with imported calves, has been included in the Bill. It is a valuable Clause. I hope that there will not be many dishonest persons.
I also want to say a word or two about Clause 9, which deals with the Minister's right to certain tenants' compensation on giving up requisitioned land. I would not be a party to denying the Minister or the Government the same fair treatment as is accorded ordinary tenants, but in regard to subsection (3) especially, which makes the necessary provisions for the Minister's rights on derequisition-

ing, I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will also be accorded fair treatment. I also hope that those who are responsible for the derequisitioning of land will bear carefully in mind, when seeking their rights, that the former owners should receive their rights.
I join the general chorus of approval and welcome which has been accorded the Bill. It is not a very big Measure but it is far-reaching in scope, and I hope that it will bring great benefits to the agricultural industry.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Kenyon: As one who has criticised the Minister rather severely with regard to certain provisions of the Bill, I wish now to congratulate him and to express the hope that the Bill will bring about everything that he desires. We know that the object which he has in mind is good and is to the benefit of the country. We certainly need a great increase, in beef cattle, and, as one hon. Member has said, no one has put forward an alternative suggestion to the calf subsidy. The reason I criticised it severely is that I do not believe that the calf subsidy is necessary. I believe that if the Minister had appealed to the farmers for the production of beef calves just as he appealed for the production of potatoes—

Captain Crookshank: And onions?

Mr. Kenyon: —it would have been forthcoming. I want to speak about grass drying. Grass drying is very necessary, but its cost will have to be watched. Dried grass is becoming far too expensive a food. Now that the subsidy has been taken off feedingstuffs and their price is increasing, the farmers will not wish to pay the large amounts they are having to pay for dried grass. It is an excellent food, but something will have to be done, whether it is by an increase in the productivity of the plant, the cheapening of the growing or the lessening of labour costs, to reduce the price of dried grass when it is sold to the farmer. Otherwise the farmers will turn, as many are doing, to silage making instead of dried grass, and I am afraid that many of the plants will be left high and dry and unused in a few years' time. I congratulate the Minister on adding to his record in agricultural legislation and


I hope that everything which he desires in the Bill will be achieved.

7.18 p.m.

Mr. Baldwin: I hope that if I make a few comments on the Bill the Minister will not think that I am criticising; he generally thinks I am doing so. I welcome the Bill and I appreciate that the Minister is doing what he thinks is a good service to agriculture. I support what has been said about subsidies by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I dislike subsidies of all sorts. They may be right as a temporary measure, but they are completely wrong as a long-term measure. I was glad to see that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had decided to take off the subsidy on feedingstuffs. I thought that was a step in the right direction.
I am sorry that the Minister has decided upon a calf subsidy in his attempt to increase beef stores in this country. The Minister said that no alternative suggestion had been made, but I endeavoured to put one forward in Committee. The idea of the calf subsidy is to increase the number of beef stores. We are to spend a lot of money; £30 million in four years is a considerable amount. I suggest to the Minister that, if he has an opportunity of reconsidering this, he could spend that money in a better way.
To begin with, a good deal of the money will be paid to pedigree breeders and dairy farmers who should not be entitled to it. The people who should be encouraged are those who live on marginal farms. If this money had been spent to encourage those smaller farmers on the marginal land to go in for calf rearing, it would have done more good. One way the Minister could have done it would have been to give a good subsidy only for those extra calves which are reared over and above one per cow, instead of giving it for all calves. In that way he might have got the extra calves he wants without spending such a huge sum of money. Another way—the way I should recommend—is that the price of beef should be increased to such a figure that the rearing of store cattle would adjust itself right down to the calf rearer. In a subsidised scheme we unbalance our agriculture entirely, so that when the Minister has an opportunity of reconsidering this, I hope he will see whether

it is not better that the price should be given for beef and so let the store cattle rearers adjust their economy right along the line.
I do not propose to say anything about artificial insemination—I have said what I think about that upstairs—except that it is entirely abnormal and is the wrong way of tackling the problem. We should be attacking the disease of abortion at its source.

7.22 p.m.

Sir John Barlow: I find myself in agreement with the hon. Members for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon) and Leominster (Mr. Baldwin), especially as regards subsidies. I have a great dislike for subsidies in general and for some of these agricultural subsidies in particular. On the one hand, the Minister is removing a large subsidy which he has given on foodstuffs until recently and is imposing subsidies for free insemination by beef bulls and for the rearing of calves, and the cost of administering these subsidies is substantial.
I do not believe the Minister accomplishes exactly what he sets out to accomplish with the subsidies for free insemination by beef bulls and the calf-rearing subsidy. With one set of subsidies he is trying to get people to breed suitable calves for the rearing of beef and with another set of subsidies he is trying to induce people to rear more suitable calves so that they will be available for the graziers and breeders to finish off as beef. Owing to the fluctuations of the natural food available in this country, and the vagaries of the climate, it does not work out like that. Sometimes the grazier is able to buy store cattle cheaply if there is a shortage of grass and natural foodstuffs; if there is abundance and demand, no matter what the subsidies given by the Minister, the price of those stores will be expensive.
For that reason, it is much better to allow the problem to resolve itself by the law of supply and demand. If the Minister had asked the farmers of this country to rear calves suitable for feeding for beef, I feel sure the farmers would have responded to him suitably and, those beef cattle would, in the end, have been produced much more economically than with the subsidies.
I was much against the free beef bull subsidy in the first place but, as it has been imposed, I think it is essential to carry it on for a second year and maybe a third in order to give it a fair trial. It was, however, a wrong method of approach. Similarly with the calf subsidy. As far as I know, practically the only calves which are ineligible for subsidy are the steer calves of the Channel Island breeds, and possibly Ayrshires, too. There will be a large number of calves receiving subsidy which are not in any way entitled to it. I can think of the Channel Island heifer calves, the heifer calves of pedigree herds, the heifer calves of many dairy herds. It will not affect the number of those reared in the slightest. If a subsidy had to be used, I would have liked to see a larger one for suitable calves. In any case, I hope that this will be only a short-lived subsidy and that, when the Minister reviews it, he may either adopt another method or improve it in some suitable way.
A great deal was said in Committee about the use of silage as against dried grass. The Minister has laid great emphasis on helping to make more dried grass available, which is most necessary in view of the high cost of imported feedingstuffs at the present time. I hope he will not overlook the plea which some of us made for an increase in the quantity of silage used in this country. There are many ways in which the right hon. Gentleman could help to increase that food. I believe it is the most economic method of conserving surplus summer grass for winter use. It is infinitely more economic than drying grass, and I hope the Minister will consider whether he cannot use this Bill—as indeed he could if he wished—to extend the use of silage.
I wish the Bill luck and success, I hope it will do some of the things for farming which the Minister hopes and, when he reviews it, I hope he will improve it in the way I have suggested.

7.28 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: If I said "amen" to the chorus of criticism and odd spots of praise, that would perhaps meet the case. There are only one or two points to which I shall refer, and that out of sheer courtesy to hon. Members who have intervened in this Third Reading Debate.
The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) suggested that the subsidy for calf rearing was the lazy way of creating more beef in this country. I should have thought that merely to put a penny per 1b.—or any unit of cash—upon the finished article was the easy way, but it might not have produced the results required. That certainly, would be the easy way administratively, but there would have been no guarantee that we would have reared more calves up to 12 months, whereas the policy we have pursued over the past 18 months has at least shown us an increase of 360,000 calves of 12 months old compared with the previous year. The results are there to be seen.
I think it was the hon. Member for Newbury—he will forgive me if I am wrong—who said that if the subsidy is extended for a further two years, its cost over four years will amount to £30 million. But to put one penny per pound on to the finished article would have cost £32 million, with no guarantee at all that we should have had any increase in the rearing of calves. Therefore, on the basis of experience—despite the fact that some farmers have received a subsidy for heifer calves that have gone into the milk herd which, perhaps, they did not need—no hon. Member, either on Second Reading, in Committee or on Third Reading, has shown us a better scheme—a better scheme, that is to say, that would have produced the calves and ultimately, I hope, the beef. That aspect very largely has been the current of thought running through the various speeches and I need not, therefore, refer to all hon. Members individually.
The hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts) said he would have liked to have made a protest to the Leader of the House because in the Bill we were dealing with a fait accompli; that we could not amend it, that already we were actually doing the thing for which we are now legislating. It is a policy of this Government to get on with the job and to talk about it and pay for it later. That may be regarded as unique, but during the past 18 months there have been several Debates on agriculture, and on any of those occasions any one of the matters dealt with in the first five Clauses of the Bill could have been raised and the theory or practice contested.
The hon. Member said he was not too sure about the results of the calf subsidy, and that it might even do harm. I do not know whether it will or not. What I am hoping, however, as a result of the first 12 months' experience, is that two years from now—although that is a long time to wait, I know—there will be 100,000 tons more British beef than there would have been but for this calf subsidy. To that extent I do not think it can be regarded as having done any harm. Any extension beyond 1st October of this year can only be done by a new scheme and by an affirmative Resolution which will have to pass through both Houses. Therefore, the House will have ample opportunity to express its point of view either about the continuance of the scheme or the form of any new scheme.
Reference was made by the hon. Member for Tonbridge (Mr. G. Williams) to an Amendment moved earlier by the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Richmond (Sir T. Dugdale) regarding the directions to be given to artificial insemination centres. I think that I replied to that matter then and need not repeat my remarks now, except to say that if the hon. Member will look carefully at Clause 4 (1, b) he will find that the Minister has full power to remunerate those who run an artificial insemination centre in case they should receive a direction from the Minister, whether the bull should live and thrive or whether it dies. The hon. Member asked how we can detect a heifer from a steer. We must be guided in these things, when laying down arrangements for artificial insemination centres, by the advice and guidance obtained from an advisory committee, of which the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Sir J. Barlow) is a member, and from our livestock officers also. We take advantage of any advice they can give about what ought to happen. I have no qualms of conscience, since no directions are likely to be given which would involve hurt, harm or loss to those in charge of the centres.
The hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Kenyon), to whom many thanks, referred to silage. I hope that neither he nor the hon. Member for Eddisbury will imagine that we are not concerned equally about silage as we are about dried grass. I said in Committee that we had been running for many years a campaign for the making of silage, and perhaps more intensely in 1948 than hitherto. The highest figure reached during the war years was 400,000 tons of silage—incidentally, a very fine protein food. In 1948, thanks to the new expansion programme and our campaign, we have pushed up production to well over 600,000 tons. Whatever quantity of dried grass we may produce in 1949 or 1950, I hope that the campaign for silage will continue side by side with that for dried grass. Several Members opposite have said that they are all against subsidies.

Mr. Alpass: The right hon. Gentleman himself used to be against them.

Mr. T. Williams: Neither my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury (Mr. Alpass) nor, indeed, any other hon. Member has been good enough or kind enough to tell me how we can produce more beef in this country without the incentive we are giving here. Nobody has deigned to make even a suggestion. All three subsidies referred to in the Bill—whether for calf rearing, the free artificial insemination service or for helping grass drying—are for limited periods of two to four years at the very outside. They were given for a specific purpose and unless hon. Members can prove that the giving of those particular subsidies has been a failure, I do not regard what they have said about them as criticism. I want, however, to express my thanks to the House for the general reception which the Bill has received, and I hope, with hon. Members, that the results we desire will be forthcoming.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (NORTHERN IRELAND)

7.37 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Younger): I beg to move,
That the Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) Regulations, 1949, dated 23rd February, 1949, a copy of which was laid before this House on 3rd March, be approved.
The House will appreciate that these are somewhat technical regulations to deal with those aspects of the preparation for and conduct of elections which fall to be dealt with by regulation by virtue of the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1948. The House very recently approved regulations of the same kind for England and Wales. These regulations are substantially the same, making allowance only for inevitable differences, which are either provided for directly in the Representation of the People Act, or were foreshadowed at that time.
The principal difference between these regulations and those approved only the other day is that these, unlike the English regulations, do not deal with local government elections or with the local government register. The reasons for that are obvious, and I need not go further into them. The other differences are of a much slighter kind and arise largely from small differences in the timetable relating to the preparation of the register. Those differences are actually provided for in Sections 1 and 5 of the main Act. There is another provision whereby every third year the register in Northern Ireland will correspond and coincide with the register used for local elections in Northern Ireland, and provision has to be made for that in one of the regulations. Apart from these differences, however, the regulations are substantially the same as those approved recently for England and Wales.

7.40 p.m.

Mr. Delargy: I have read these regulations in great detail in all their parts, paragraphs and schedules and I have only one objection to make. I believe these regulations are inadequate to deal with the end for which they are devised. The purpose of these regulations is obviously, as with the regu-

lations submitted to this House for England and Wales, that elections shall be free, shall be secret, shall be democratic; that every person who has the right to vote shall be accorded that vote and finally that the process of voting shall be as simple and easy as possible for every elector.
In any normal democratic State, these regulations would be quite sufficient for all those purposes. In any State where the registration officers, the local authorities and the Government were concerned to obey the law, these regulations would be admirable; they would be sufficient to cover all the purposes I have indicated; but I cast no reflection whatever on the Home Secretary when I say that the regulations he submits to the House tonight are quite inadequate to secure free and fully guaranteed democratic elections in Northern Ireland. He has done his best. It is not his fault that these regulations will not be carried out. It is not his fault that he is dealing with a crowd of people who obey only those paragraphs of the law which suit their own purposes.

Sir Ronald Ross: Nonsense.

Mr. Delargy: It is not the fault of my right hon. Friend that the parties to whom these regulations are addressed have not the smallest desire to encourage democratic practices. Under his present powers, probably, the Home Secretary can do no more than he has done. I hope the day is not far distant when he will have wider powers, in order to insist that there shall be democratic elections in Northern Ireland. Better still, I hope the day will soon arrive when the right hon. Gentleman will be relieved of this burden, a burden which, for a man of his democratic sympathies, indeed, of his profound democratic principles, he must find irksome and most uncongenial. I hope the time will quickly arrive when the Irish people can decide these things for themselves.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must not discuss the situation in Ireland. We are discussing these regulations.

Mr. Delargy: Very good, I give a solemn undertaking not to deviate by one split fraction of a syllable from the regulations under consideration. I call the attention of the House to Regulation 24:
Corrupt and illegal practices list


and in particular to paragraph 6, which says:
A copy of the corrected corrupt and illegal practices list shall, on publication, be furnished by the registration officer to the Secretary of State, the Ministry of Home Affairs for Northern Ireland and the British Museum.
Hon. Members will appreciate that it is most appropriate that these regulations should be consigned to a museum, because no more notice will be taken of them than of all the other relics, mummies and dodos of the past. In a museum these regulations would be in their rightful place among other old, musty documents, sometimes perused by sightseers or students in search of curious and esoteric lore. But that a copy of them should be despatched to the Ministry of Home Affairs for Northern Ireland seems to me a great waste of time and paper. The Ministry of Home Affairs for Northern Ireland knows far more about corrupt and illegal practices than all of us put together. The Ministry of Home Affairs for Northern Ireland could open university classes on corrupt and illegal practices. They could write volumes about them and certainly speak on them with great authority, authority born of long and skilful practice. I submit that a copy of the corrected corrupt and illegal practices list should not be sent to the Ministry of Home Affairs for Northern Ireland unless in this corrected copy the Home Secretary might be able to make an end of those corrupt and illegal practices, but I think that for the time being that would be asking far too much and that it is far beyond the powers of the right hon. Gentleman.
I also ask hon. Members to look at page 27 of these regulations. It deals with:
Form E: Elector's official poll card.
There it states:
The poll will be open from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. Your polling station will be—
then there is a blank and dotted lines. Normally the polling station which is there described is the polling station which is convenient to the electors of the district. Polling stations are supposed to be so placed as to be convenient to the electors in that particular area. That is the practice in this country, but not in Northern Ireland, where the authorities want to make voting as difficult as possible for all who oppose the Government.

It is not uncommon in Northern Ireland for an elector to walk several miles, passing several polling booths on his weary journey before he can find the place where he is to vote.

Sir R. Ross: Nonsense.

Mr. Delargy: The hon. Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross) says "nonsense." He should know that that is the practice in his constituency. Certainly it is the practice in County Down, where I happened to be present on polling day in an election for the purposes of returning an hon. Member for this House about two years ago. Although I will not vote against the regulations, and I agree that the Home Secretary has done his very best—since in any normal democratic State such as this country these regulations would be admirable—I have to warn the right hon. Gentleman that they will not be applied in Northern Ireland, or at least only those parts which happen to suit the majority party in that part of the United Kingdom.

7.47 p.m.

Mr. Gage: I confess I find the tortuous and complicated argument of the hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Delargy) more difficult to follow than most of his arguments. He started by saying that these were excellent regulations, that they were well designed to do what it was wished that they should do, namely to regulate the woting in Imperial elections, and then went on to say that they should be consigned to a museum. That sort of argument cannot appeal to any reasonable person. One cannot say that these regulations should not be passed because they are going to be broken, particularly when one does not give any instance of how they will be broken, but embarks upon a general panegyric about Northern Ireland and the way in which they conduct their elections. I was recently in Northern Ireland when elections were conducted—not for this House—and the only thing which I feared would make me feel that normal practices were not being observed was when I asked an old farmer in a constituency on the Border how they were getting on and he said: "Man, we are doing rightly, but they Nationalists vote 101 per cent." I do not know how they did that, but I noticed that it was not the Unionists whom one could attack for that. It is not a really serious argument and I think the House can ignore it.
The regulations are designed to carry out the purposes of the Act. They are similar to the regulations here and I do not think anyone on this side of the House could object to them. There is only one matter to which I would draw attention as it perplexes me. If hon. Members turn to regulation 20, they will see:
The registration officer before registering any persons (other than a service voter) may, if he thinks it necessary—
require two things:

"(a) require that person either to produce a birth certificate or to make a statutory declaration that he was of full age on the qualifying date,
(b) require that person either to produce a certificate of naturalisation or to make a statutory declaration that he was a British subject or citizen of Eire on the qualfying date."

Section 1 (2) of the principal Act, which sets out the people entitled to vote in elections, says:
The persons entitled to vote as electors at a parliamentary election in any constituency shall be those resident there on the qualifying date who, on that date and on the date of the poll, are British subjects of full age and not subject to any legal incapacity to vote.
It seems to me that the regulations are going beyond the purpose of the Act in that respect, because when the Act was passed nothing was then said about citizens of Eire being entitled to vote. I think that came later when the British Naturalisation Act went through its various stages in this House. I recollect then that when I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether a citizen of Eire would be able to vote in elections to this House, either in this country or in Northern Ireland, he said they would. It may have been an oversight at the time, but the Act does confine the right to vote to a British subject.
Therefore, it seems to me that if we make regulations under the Act we must confine those regulations to British subjects. I do not quite understand Regulation 20, which apparently envisages the right of citizens of Eire to vote, who indeed may not be British subjects and probably will not be British subjects, because as far as we know, by an Eire Act anyone who is a citizen of Eire automatically renounces his British subject status. I think that is an important point with which the right hon. Gentleman should deal because it appears to me that the regulations in that respect go beyond the Act.
Apart from that, nobody can find any fault with these regulations. They are designed to implement the Act. All our objections about the Act have been stated, and this is not the time to repeat them. Now that the Act has become law, these regulations have to be passed. I think I can say that the people of Ulster will loyally regard those regulations and will see that they are enforced, and I have no doubt that if they do they will still continue to return Unionist Members to this House.

7.53 p.m.

Mr. Bing: I think we can all congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on having done a very workmanlike job. The only doubt in my mind is whether to make these regulations as like as possible to the British regulations, is to make the best type of regulations for elections which we all know, are as unlike the British type of election as one could possibly conceive. Perhaps I might draw one example from the regulations. One will observe that Regulations 25 to 61 are entirely concerned with the problem of collecting the votes from absent voters. That is not a problem which exists in Northern Ireland. The problem is the other way round—how to secure that the actual number of votes cast do not exceed the total of the electorate. The hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Harden) is not here at the moment. I wrote him a note and said that I should refer to this point with reference to the recent by-election in Armagh. If one looks at those by-election figures one finds that the election was fought on a stale register in an area where the people were a great distance from the polling booths; yet they managed to secure the record poll of 88.6 per cent. If they could do that without the help of these regulations, what will they do when my right hon. Friend has given these additional facilities?
I now turn to Regulation 14, because it is that regulation, entitled "Correction of clerical errors and removal of names of dead persons," which probably suffices to answer the various points which have been raised particularly by the hon. Member for South Belfast (Mr. Gage). He said that my hon. Friend the Member for Platting (Mr. Delargy) had given no examples. I want very shortly to give to the House one or two examples, taken


from a Unionist member of the North Irish House, as to why, for example, this Regulation might well be used in such a way as to introduce the most undesirable corruption into elections. I am going to quote from Mr. Nixon. Mr. Nixon was a police officer of great experience. He served in the I.R.A. and rose to very high rank.

Sir R. Ross: The I.R.A?

Mr. Bing: The hon. Gentleman will excuse my slip of the tongue; I meant the R.I.C. Subsequently he was in the R.U.C., and he was a trusted police officer of the Northern Ireland Government. He subsequently became a Unionist Member of Parliament. It is true that while he accepts the policy of hon. Members opposite in the Northern Ireland Parliament, he refuses to accept their whip because he does not approve of the methods by which they have obtained political power. Of course, that does not mean that he does not approve of their philosophy. Hon. Members opposite are quite unable to contest the facts which he puts forward, because he was one of the few Members whom they did not even oppose at their recent election.
When we are dealing with this Regulation it is as well to say a word or two on what Mr. Nixon said with reference to a by-election to this House two or three years ago—the Down by-election. He was very apprehensive that there would be some form of corruption involving the registration officers and the returning officers. This is what he said:
With regard to the Minister's statement that he has no reason for believing that there are great preparations for personation, did the preparations stop? With regard to my finding out information and giving it to the Minister, he is nearer Glengall Street than I am.
Glengall Street, of course, is the Unionist headquarters. He went on to say:
Furthermore, if I did give information and if anyone was apprehended and brought to justice, is it not a fact that acting according to custom the Unionist grand jury would find no bill?
This is not a Member of this side of the House speaking; it is a Unionist Member—one who has the courage not to accept the method by which the Northern Ireland Conservatives conduct their elections. He continued:

Is it not a fact that everyone brought up for personation for a number of years belonged to one party and one party only, the Official Unionist Party?

Mr. Gage: Surely, the hon. Gentleman knows that a person charged with personation cannot go before a grand jury unless he is dealt with summarily.

Mr. Bing: It is not for me to dispute with a senior officer of the police who probably knows police procedure in Northern Ireland better than either of us.
I want to say a word or two about this regulation, because it is important that we should consider how far a power which is given here to someone to strike a name off or to correct a clerical error, can in fact be misused. Let me give one example, again from Mr. Nixon, who says this:
The thing was wholesale and absolute. I say that many of the presiding officers, though not all, were in absolute league with the personators.
He describes personation in these terms:
I saw two young girls of 18, who were at the 'Unionist' table, going in to personate"—
He then goes on to name one of them—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I do not see the relevance of the hon. Member's remarks to these regulations. Perhaps he will restrict his remarks more particularly to the regulations.

Mr. Bing: Perhaps I did not make myself clear. These regulations give the registration officer power to make alterations or corrections, and if, as it is alleged by a Unionist Member that registration officers and presiding officers are engaged in personation, it is surely highly relevant to say that these officers should not be entrusted with these powers. I will leave that point and say this to my right hon. Friend. These regulations may be of value as a trial to see whether they are sufficient. These are very serious charges of corruption which have been made, not from this side but by a member of their own side. There is, therefore, a responsibility on the part of Members opposite to see that this sort of thing does not continue. I only wish that some Members of the House were present when the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Astor) raised various questions and said that we ought to look very carefully into public life to see how things go on.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order! The hon. Member must relate general allegations of this description to a particular regulation. It is not sufficient to indulge in general assertions with no relevance to the regulations.

Mr. Bing: Perhaps I did not make myself clear. I was turning to the point whether these regulations are sufficient, and whether much more stringent regulations should not be made. I hope that Members opposite will see that it is not necessary to make more stringent regulations to ensure democracy in Ireland, but if it is, then that my right hon. Friend will not hesitate to take the necessary steps.

8.2 p.m.

Professor Savory: I am extremely sorry that these allegations have been made and advantage has been taken of these very simple regulations to bring forward these charges, none of which have been substantiated. The hon. Member for Horn-church (Mr. Bing) says that personation takes place only on one side, but I can tell him that I was personated—someone voted for me. I remember very well an election which took place in County Tyrone. There was a majority of 13 in favour of the Nationalist candidate, and a banquet was held in order to celebrate this great victory.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: All this is very entertaining, but the hon. Member should relate his remarks to the regulations.

Professor Savory: I am sorry. I shall have to tell the rest of my story in the Smoke Room.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sorry, too.

Professor Savory: I have a very important point to bring forward in regard to these regulations, to which allusion has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Belfast (Mr. Gage). The object of these regulations, I take it, is to put into force, so far as Northern Ireland is concerned, the Representation of the People Act, 1948, but I notice,—and my hon. Friend the Member for South Belfast has already drawn the attention of the House to this—a very serious discrepancy. In accordance with the Representation of the People Act, Section 1 (2),

The persons entitled to vote as electors at a parliamentary election in any constituency shall be those resident there on the qualifying date who, on that date and on the date of the poll, are British subjects of full age.
The House will note that the only people, in accordance with the Representation of the People Act, the terms of which we are trying to carry out under these regulations, who are entitled to vote are British subjects, whereas in these regulations—I draw attention to Regulation 20 (1, b)—it is stated that a person may apply for registration by making
a statutory declaration that he was a British subject or a citizen of Eire on the qualifying date.
Further forms of declaration are given on pages 30 and 31, in accordance with which applicants for registration, or for the appointment of a proxy, must declare that they are British subjects or citizens of Eire.
I wish to ask the Home Secretary how it is that this phrase "citizens of Eire" has crept into the regulations, when it does not appear anywhere in the Representation of the People Act, 1948. It can only be that the Government are relying upon the British Nationality Act, 1948, which became law on 30th July, 1948. The Section upon which, I take it, the Government are relying is Section 3 (2), in which it is stated, and I am only giving a summary of it, that:
Any law in force in any part of the United Kingdom … at the date of the commencement of this Act … shall … continue to have effect in relation to citizens of Eire who are not British subjects in like manner as it has effect in relation to British subjects.
The question I wish to put to the Home Secretary is whether the law relating to citizens of Eire—that is, the British Nationality Act, 1948—passed at a time when Eire was part of the British Commonwealth of Nations, can apply to the citizens of Eire when Eire has left the Commonwealth and has become an independent Republic. I wish to quote on this subject—and I speak on these matters with very great diffidence—the very greatest legal authority I can find. He says this:
I doubt very much whether Parliament as a whole really understood at the time that the phrase 'a citizen of Eire.' used in the Act when Eire was within the Commonwealth, could be given by the Government a connotation so wide as to cover a citizen of some future Republic called 'Eire,' which hereafter divorces itself from the Commonwealth


altogether. Moreover, is that the right construction of the phrase in the British Nationality Act at all? At the time when that Act was passed Eire was by our law a Dominion within the Commonwealth, and a citizen of Eire meant a citizen of such a Dominion. It is both good law and good sense—and, believe me, the two very often go together—that a phrase like that is to be understood as what it meant when the Act was passed. The whole argument for the Government view, as expressed in this statement, must be that a citizen of Eire means a citizen of an independent sovereign non - Commonwealth Republic which did not then exist at all. But that does not seem to me by any means clear.
That is the opinion of an ex-Solicitor-General, ex-Attorney-General and ex-Lord Chancellor, namely, Lord Simon, whose views surely command respect in this House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The whole point is this: does the phrase "citizens of Eire," in the British Nationality Act, apply to the citizens of a Republic which was not then created and which will be, on Easter Monday, wholly outside the Commonwealth? Is there to be reciprocity in this matter? I was an elector for a Southern Ireland constituency, and because I refused to sign a paper that I was a citizen of Eire I was struck off the register and deprived of my vote. I believe that this is still the law in Eire, under the Aliens Act, 1935.
Eire, by law, when she leaves the Commonwealth, automatically makes herself a foreign country, and her people foreigners. That is a legal fact, and it is no good trying to gloss it over. When the British Nationality Act was being passed no member of the Government ever dreamed that it would be used in this way. This Act became law on 30th July, and the first indication we had that Eire would become an independent Republic was on 7th September. I therefore submit that it is at least and I put it moderately—of very doubtful legality whether, under these regulations which should be non-controversial, a citizen of Eire can be made an elector for Northern Ireland.
According to the Representation of the People Act, 1948, Part I, Section 1 (3 (b)) an elector has only to prove residence either on 31st October or 30th April. The consequence is that we may receive an influx of citizens of Eire, who will have to prove only one day's residence in order to get on the register. I

urge the Government to postpone discussion of these regulations until such time as the law relating to the subject has been clarified, that is, until, by subsequent legislation, it has been determined exactly whether a citizen of Eire is legally entitled to be placed on the register of Northern Ireland.
In conclusion, I wish to quote an opinion by a very great legal authority, Serjeant Sullivan, whose letter in "The Times" was endorsed and strongly approved by Lord Simon. He says:
Next Easter that State"—
that is, the present state of Eire, which is linked with the Crown, which is part of the Commonwealth of Nations—
with its citizens will cease to exist. A strange sovereignty—a Republic—will take over the 26 counties. All oaths of allegiance will be dissolved, and we shall become foreign republicans, legal persons entirely different from the citizens of Eire that we are now. As foreign republicans we shall be disqualified from holding or acting in any public office reserved for British subjects, whether in the legislature, the judiciary, the local authority or the electorate.
I call attention to the words "or the electorate." He says that they will cease to be qualified as electors. Serjeant Sullivan goes on:
The spokesmen of the Government have declared that they will not 'regard' these facts, but the Government cannot bar access to the courts or control the decision of tribunals that will enforce the law, no matter how unpleasant it may be for them. The law courts will pay no attention to the Government or their excuses. The Lord Chancellor suggested that in the British Nationality Act there is a provision that hereafter the citizens of any foreign State that assumes the name of Eire shall be thereby endowed with all the rights of British subjects. There is much rubbish in the Act, but not that much.
I have brought up these matters with great diffidence, not being a lawyer, but when I read statements by Lord Simon, and by a jurist with such vast experience and knowledge of these questions as Serjeant Sullivan, I have my doubts. I ask whether the Home Secretary is justified in not doing as I contend he ought to have done, that is, in inserting in the regulations what is in the Act—the Representation of the People Act—but in drawing from an external Act, which has nothing to do with this question, the phrase "citizens of Eire," which he wishes to impose upon us as meaning British subjects.

8.17 p.m.

Mr. John Beattie: After listening to the speech of the hon. Member for the Queen's University of Belfast (Professor Savory) I am not surprised that so much ill-feeling and mistrust has been aroused among all true and loyal Irishmen—

Sir R. Ross: Is the hon. Gentleman one?

Mr. Beattie: Yes.

Sir R. Ross: The hon. Gentleman voted against the Loyal Address in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Beattie: The speech of the hon. Member for the Queen's University is of one who does not belong to Ireland, one who is in favour of Home Rule for countries abroad but who denies to Ireland the same right is a disgrace to any representative who comes from the place known as Ireland. I know something about regulations which govern elections. I have fought eight Parliamentary elections in Irish politics, and also three local government elections. I admire the courage of the Home Secretary in trying to bring in regulations which will guarantee a right to Irishmen to vote for the person of their own choice. Unfortunately, there is much weakness in the regulations, as in other regulations which I have had to fight. I know it is impossible for regulations to be made watertight, but in Northern Ireland we have suffered at the hands of an expert gerrymanderer. The regulations we are now asked to approve have already been undermined.
I want to improve electioneering and everything pertaining to free elections in Northern Ireland. I want to see every citizen of Ireland have the same right in elections as they are given in Britain. Why is this bitterness and ill-feeling being shown here today by the hon. Member for the Queen's University, who is now singing his swan song to this House against the right of any Irishman to vote in elections in his own country? I see a division in the camp. The hon. Member for South Belfast (Mr. Gage) favours these regulations, but the hon. Member for the Queen's University despises the regulations. It is a good thing to see, once in a while, division in the camp of Northern Ireland Tories.

Professor Savory: Surely we are absolutely agreed in principle.

Mr. Beattie: I want to ask the Secretary of State to bear this point in mind. I have been one of the victims of these regulations. I have an electorate of 85,000 voters. I want the Secretary of State to guarantee that these regulations will give the right to every one of those voters to go to the polling station and cast his vote. [An HON. MEMBER: "Freely?"] Yes, freely. I am going to allow the same rights to my opponent as I do to my supporters, but I tell this House that my voters cannot go to the polling stations to cast their vote. [Interruption.] We have to use armoured cars in Northern Ireland. It was in a Belfast division that we had to use armoured cars to take the electors to the polling booths and to bring our representatives from the polling booths back home; I do not want to go into history. I could tell the hon. Member for South Belfast, who has made a statement about an old farmer telling the tale—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have been hoping that the hon. Member would refer to some specific regulation.

Mr. Beattie: I said that I admired the courage and the determination of the Secretary of State to establish free elections through the medium of these regulations. I am supporting the regulations. I want to ask the Secretary of State a question. I hope that the same latitude will be allowed to me as was allowed to the hon. Member for South Belfast, who said that the nationally-minded people of Ireland had voted 101 per cent. I want to tell you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that I went through an election when more votes were taken out of the ballot boxes than there were names on the register.
These regulations will be delegated to the authority in Northern Ireland. I disagree with that delegation. The administration of these regulations should be kept within the power of the Secretary of State. I shall give my reasons for saying so, if you will allow me that bit of scope, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I have passed through an election just a few weeks ago. I feel that I am entitled to speak and to give the advice necessary to the Secretary of State. I made my appeal to Caesar, but


I was cast out. No protection of any kind was given to me either by the police or by the authorities in control. I came to this House and I appealed to the Secretary of State. He, of course, was helpless. He has no authority or control over Northern Ireland elections.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to give his own experiences unless he relates them to some specific regulation. He now appears to be indulging, in some general assertion but I am not clear as to whether there is any regulation on the matter—I think not.

Mr. Beattie: I hope I am not unduly trespassing upon your patience, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I should not like to do that. I want the administration of these regulations to be retained in the hands and under the authority of this House. I know that the regulations will become so much waste paper after they leave the authority of this House and that no protection of any kind will be given to the electorate under the Representation of the People Act. I could give you two or three examples if you wished, but I fear—[Interruption.]
I want the right hon. Gentleman to see that the power of granting polling places is equal to the requirements and the area of the electorate. There are stations in my division which would be more suitable and accommodating for my people to go to vote in their own quarter, but they are asked to leave their own quarter and walk three miles down the road, passing a polling station that they could use to cast their vote. They are asked to walk three miles into a district of a different kind and to give their vote there. I ask that the Secretary of State shall see to it that polling places are made in areas convenient for the electorate. That is not done and it has not been done. It will not be done if the authority is taken out of the hands of the Secretary of State. I do not always agree with him, but I am agreeing with him on this occasion. We in Northern Ireland must have the same protection as have the candidates in Great Britain. That is all we ask. We ask for nothing more nor nothing less.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That question does not arise under the regulations. The

hon. Member is entitled to refer only to the merits or demerits of the regulations, and their application.

Mr. Beattie: That is all I am doing.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member was speaking about protection. That question does not seem to arise under the regulations.

Mr. Beattie: I understand that the administration, that is the carrying out of elections, will rest with Northern Ireland.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That may well be a matter for the authorities in Northern Ireland, possibly the police, but it is not, so far as I can see, a matter which is referred to in the regulations. Therefore, the hon. Member cannot refer to it.

Mr. Beattie: I think I am entitled to ask how we in Northern Ireland can have the same conditions as obtain in Great Britain, for carrying out elections if the same authority is not controlling those elections. I am pleading with the Secretary of State to ensure the carrying out of the elections, on behalf of this House, under his authority and his authority only. That is all that I am trying to convey.
I am delighted, and wish to say to the hon. Member for the Queen's University "Cead Mille Failte." [HON. MEMBERS: "Translate."] If the House wants to know what that means, it is "A hundred thousand welcomes." The hon. Member has made the best case for the inclusion of all citizens of Ireland, the whole of Ireland.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has finished his speech?

Mr. Beattie: I was just finishing.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to continue on the lines upon which he was speaking. He is not entitled to refer to that matter.

Mr. Beattie: I know that I have a very narrow path on which to travel, and I am trying to travel along it in the best possible way. I feel that I am entitled to ask for the assurances and guarantees of this House to the electorate of Northern Ireland in relation to the Representation of the People Act. I feel that these regulations will go a good part of


the way by the setting up of the machinery, but the administration, if allowed to go to the other side of the Channel, will break down the whole system which is intended, and we shall not have the elections which the right hon. Gentleman wishes us to have. I wish his regulations well. I hope that they will be approved by this House and be approved by every one in the House.

8.33 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): These regulations cover a very narrow range indeed, and most of the points which have been raised by my hon. Friends do not properly come within the scope of the regulations. I should be out of Order if I dealt with most of the questions which they have put to me. For example, the responsibility for law and order in Northern Ireland at elections and other times is not mine but that of the Northern Ireland Government, and nothing that I could put into these regulations would alter the law on that point.
As far as I have been able to ascertain, the only point dealing with the regulations which has been put by any of the speakers in the course of the Debate is that which was raised by the hon. Member for South Belfast (Mr. Gage) and the hon. Member for Queen's University of Belfast (Professor Savory) with regard to the inclusion of Regulation 20 (1, b), which enables the registration officer before registering any person, to require that person, if he thinks it necessary, either to produce a certificate of naturalisation or to make a statutory declaration that he was a British subject or a citizen of Eire on the qualifying date. The hon. Member for Queen's University was in error in saying that the British Nationality Act came into force on 30th July, 1948.

Professor Savory: I said that it was passed; that it became law on 30th July.

Mr. Ede: It came into force on 1st January, 1949.

Professor Savory: Yes, of course. I know that, but I said it became law.

Mr. Ede: I am trying to put the exact point that ought to be put before the House. It came into force on 1st January, 1949. The position with regard to the matter is this. The British Nationality Act, 1948, enacted, in Section 3 (2), that any United Kingdom law in force on the

day that that Act came into force, namely, 1st January, 1949, shall have effect in relation to a citizen of Eire in like manner as it has effect in relation to a British subject. Therefore a citizen of Eire has the same rights in this matter which he had on 1st January, 1949, when he was entitled to be registered as an elector. That is the whole of the case for putting that phrase into the regulations. Curiously enough this same phrase was in the English regulations which were passed a few days ago. They were accepted by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State merely nodding his head when his name was called from the Chair.
This is not peculiar to Northern Ireland. This relates to the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It merely gives to the registration officer the necessary information to make quite certain that he is fully informed when he puts his questions to the person who claims to be registered. That person must be in the position, if the question of his nationality is in dispute, to prove one of three things. Either that he has a certificate of naturalisation, or that he is a British subject, or that he is a citizen of Eire. If he can give an affirmative answer to any of those three questions he is entitled to be registered.
That is the way in which I have been advised by the Law Officers of the Crown, and I see no reason for doubting the opinion they have given. That opinion has been given to me since the statement made in another place by Lord Simon and since the letters from Serjeant Sullivan have been published in "The Times." I have every reason to believe that the advice is sound and I recommend the House to accept that situation. As has been admitted by the hon. Member for South Belfast (Mr. Gage) the issue was raised during the passage of the British Nationality Act, when I gave an answer consistent with what I have said this evening. It is not altered by the fact that another Parliament has passed an Act of their Parliament relating to their own domestic laws. This House is sovereign with regard to the laws that shall apply in the United Kingdom, and so far as I know, what it says cannot affect anything that is done by the Parliament of Eire. Neither can anything that the Parliament of Eire does affect the domestic law of this country as enacted by this Parlia


ment. Therefore, I recommend the House to pass these regulations. I am certain that in doing so they need not fear any legal complications from the British Nationality Act.

Professor Savory: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether this Act was not passed by us on 30th July under the misapprehension that Eire was going to remain part of the British Common-wealth? How, therefore, can it be applied to a totally different circumstance when Eire has become an independent Republic?

Mr. Ede: What the Irish Parliament may have done does not affect the law of this country. In order to deal with that situation it would be necessary for this Parliament to pass another Act amending the British Nationality Act. The hon. Member for the Queen's University and I both labour under difficulties on these matters, because we have to go to lawyers for advice. The problem always is that if people on two sides of an issue go to two separate lawyers they both seem to be able to get legal advice confirming their own views. I am advised, on the authority of the Law Officers of the Crown, that the position I have stated is the correct legal position and that anything that another Parliament independent of this one may have done cannot affect an Act of this Parliament. It would be necessary, if anything was desired to be done, to amend our Act to achieve the purposes desired by the hon. Member. Might I express the hope that I might be speedily able to get to the Smoking Room to hear the end of the hon. Member's story?

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
That the Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) Regulations, 1949, dated 23rd February, 1949, a copy of which was laid before this House on 3rd March, be approved.

HOUSE OF COMMONS MEMBERS' FUND

Colonel Clarke appointed a Managing Trustee of the House of Commons Members' Fund in the room of Sir Ralph Glyn, resigned.—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]

EXTERNAL EXAMINATIONS (GRANT-AIDED SCHOOLS)

8.43 p.m.

Commander Maitland: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Regulations, dated 17th February, 1949, entitled the Primary and Secondary Schools (Grant Conditions) Amending Regulations, No. 8, 1949 (S.I., 1949, No. 250), a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th February, be annulled.
Behind those words, which do not appear to mean anything very much, lies a very important order. It is an order which will make a serious alteration in our secondary education system. In effect, this order introduces new examinations to replace the school certificate and the higher school certificate examinations. Moreover, it requires that these examinations shall not be taken until a child attains the age of sixteen on or before 1st September of the year in which the examination is held. Also it has the effect of requiring that external examinations shall be held only once in each year. These reforms, if indeed they can be called reforms, are the result of the Report of the Secondary School Examinations Council, and they were forecast in circular 168 of the Ministry of Education. The Secondary School Examinations Council were unanimous in their Report, but they made a special appeal to the Minister that it should be carefully considered. They said:
The Council trust that they will not be thought to be going outside their province if they express the hope that the widest possible opportunity will be given for discussion of their recommendations before any detailed decisions are taken on them. They understand that it is your intention to consult the Universities, to whom these recommendations are, obviously, of very close concern. It will also be necessary to consult Examining Bodies about the dates of the Examination, and the Council are proceeding to arrange for this consultation.
I quote that in full, because I want to make it quite clear that this is the last occasion—this is, in fact, the eleventh hour—upon which we can discuss these regulations in the place where they ought to be discussed, namely, in this House. We have sought from this side of the House to raise the subject in the Debate on the Estimates, and we were fortunate enough to obtain an Adjournment Debate on the subject.


We thought it our duty again to raise the matter now and we make no excuse for what we are doing.
There has certainly been an enormous amount of discussion on this matter and I will not bore the House by going into detail on all the arguments which have been put ad infinitum to the Minister. There has been a tremendous lot of argument put to the Minister but only one reply, and that has been the inevitable "No." I cannot help thinking that that was not quite the sort of discussion which the Secondary School Examinations Council expected. I think they thought the Minister would, perhaps, be more amenable under argument.
I must say that I think the full importance of this step is not sufficiently realised by some hon. Members. I should like to quote from a speech made by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Corlett), but first I take this opportunity of saying that I am sorry he is not in his place tonight. He is not well and I am sure the House will wish him the best of good luck and express hopes for his quick recovery. In speaking of the place of the external examination in our education he said:
For the first time, we now have the place of the external examination in the educational field. We have always known that it had no place in the nursery school, the infants' school, the junior school and the modern school. At no price would they have it. That battle was won long ago.
He went on to talk about the universities and ended by saying:
So we have this position, that the external examination has one small place in the whole educational field,, and that is the grammar schools, and only for that very small section of grammar school students who are going forward to institutions of further education, or who wish for exemption from university or professional examinations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th December, 1948; Vol. 459, c. 1584–5.]
It is a very small section, but what an important section it is. I wish to stress that fact. After all, in the ordinary way I think it is from that section that the majority of the leaders of this country will be drawn in the future. There will be a great number of honourable exceptions, but it is reasonable to suppose that those people who will push our knowledge further in the scientific field or the field of investigation generally, who will steadily increase our knowledge, will come from that very "small section," as the hon. Member for York described it.
In appealing to the Minister to reconsider this matter we must emphasise its very great importance over the whole field of our education. The question of the need for external examinations must inevitably intrude in the consideration of regulations of this kind. I want to make it quite plain that on this side of the House we place no particular sanctity on the present school certificate. I remember saying in this House about two and a half years ago, in a Debate on the Estimates, that I hoped that the whole question of the school-leaving examination, and its place in education, would be considered. I want to make it plain that we do not, as it were, pin our faith entirely on the present scheme. I agree that it is by no means perfect. I agree that the school certificate has been used for purposes for which it was not designed. But one must be realistic.
Many of the purposes for which it has been used have not been bad purposes. It has been extremely useful to the community, and there is nothing to replace it. If the right hon. Gentleman tells me that school reports can replace it, then I refer him to the recent resolutions by the universities to the effect that they could not at this present moment accept school reports as a basis on which to judge the ability of students. If they cannot, then it is quite impossible for those outside—in industry or anywhere else—to do so.

Mr. Ralph Morley: This order does not abolish the external examination, but merely modifies it. People will still be able to take the school certificate as evidence to employers that they have reached a certain standard of education.

Commander Maitland: I realise that quite clearly, but if they do that, they will have to stay at school a longer time to do it, and although I regard it as a most estimable thing that children should stay at school as long as possible, I must say that I do not think a good reason for their staying there is simply to get some sort of certificate in order then to go out to get a job. That will induce people who are less suitable to stay at school, rather than those who are more suitable to stay. Although, as I say, I should like to see as many as possible stay as long as possible at school, I can not think that this method is the right way of getting them to do it.
Our great criticism is, of course, the question of the chronological age being the criterion as opposed to the mental age. It seems to us quite wrong arbitrarily to take the date of a child's birth, which becomes very important when there is only one examination every year. We think that there must be some better way. Let me quote the figures, which many in this House already know, of the results of the 1948 examinations. I am perfectly aware that those examinations are not school certificate examinations, but I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that they were based—at least the Report of the Secondary Schools Examination Council assumed that they would be, and the Minister himself in his circular assumed they would be—on the standards of the present existing school certificate.
In the Northern Universities Joint Matriculation Board Examination in 1948, the figures for boys were: 23.7 per cent. of all the boys who took the school certificate took it under the age of 16; of those 80.6 per cent. passed, which was a higher percentage than the percentage of all the boys who took that examination; and they obtained an average of 5.2 credits, which was a higher average than that of all the boys who took the examination. Concerning the State scholarships, 81 per cent. of those who in 1948, in that particular area, gained State scholarships had taken them under the age of 16.
It seems to me that the position of an intelligent boy who is born at the wrong time of the year must be retarded and badly affected by not being able to take the external examination before he is 16. Whatever way we look at this matter, he will have to be held back. If that is so, I cannot see—and I have tried very hard to see—the right hon. Gentleman's point of view. It is educationally indefensible. Surely the masters themselves are the best judges of when boys are suitable for taking the external examination.
Many important people in the educational system of this country agree that this will adversely affect the organisation of schools at a very difficult time. It is going to affect, we believe, the standard of the sixth form at a time when we need a higher academic standard than

ever before. The transitional period in 1950, when the school certificate is still being used, will be particularly unfair on the child who is born at the wrong time of the year.
The last point which I want to make is this. The Minister claims in all his speeches that this is going to give more freedom to the schools. I have sought hard to find out whether this will be so or not, and frankly I cannot understand exactly what he means. I have spoken to many headmasters and headmistresses on this subject, and they do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it means more freedom. I hope that he will explain in simple words, such as I can understand, exactly what he means. I am not the only person who cannot understand this matter. The Minister, when he went into this subject more deeply than at any other time with the joint four, said that he hoped that the universities would trust the schools. It is rather difficult for the universities to trust the schools when he does not trust them himself, and when he is taking out of the hands of the schools the time at which a boy or girl can actually take the examination. I cannot see how the universities can do anything but what they have done.
This is the last opportunity that we have of praying against this order. We do so in no acrimonious spirit, but because we want to get the best type of child from whatever home he comes and to see that he has the best chance, and that he does the best for the country that he can. I know that the Council reported unanimously, but my papers have told me that after that report had been made unanimously—which always impresses people who speak on this matter—representations were made to the Minister to the effect that they rather wished that they had thought about it again. That must be exasperating for any Minister.

The Minister of Education (Mr. Tomlinson): I think we ought to get this straight. It is true that representations were made, but no representations were ever made by the representatives who were part and parcel of the Examinations Council. On no occasion did any representative on the Examinations Council make representations to me.

Commander Maitland: That is a very interesting statement, which we are very glad to have.

Mr. Tomlinson: The associations they represented made representations, but not the representatives of the associations.

Commander Maitland: That is an important point, and I am very glad that the Minister has put it right, because it appeared from the way it was "put across" in the Press that certain members who had taken part in the discussions had been in contact with the Minister in order to express some doubt. I am very glad to hear that that was not so. It is true, as the Minister has admitted, that the associations they represented have expressed a contrary view, and I quite agree that that must be absolutely maddening to any Minister who wants to get on with the job. As I have tried to make clear, this is an important matter, and if there were any doubt at all about it the Minister should have asked that Council to think again, to flog it out a bit more, to see if they could not get something more acceptable to those who have to do the work, because it is from the masters and mistresses who have to prepare these children that the opposition comes, whereas those who do not have children to prepare for this sort of work support the Minister in this matter. It is quite obvious that in those circumstances the people of this country must feel very anxious about it.

9.2 p.m.

Mr. Hollis: I beg to second the Motion so ably moved by my hon. and gallant Friend.
When last I had the privilege of taking part in a Debate with the Minister of Education, he and I were on the same side, and I therefore naturally thought that on that occasion he made a remarkably sensible speech. I am still not without hope that even at this last minute we may win some concessions out of him, because when I study, as I have done with some care, the pronouncements that he has made upon this topic which we are debating it seems to me that though his conclusions are in favour of these regulations the arguments he uses are usually against them; that, as it were, his head is in one Division Lobby and his legs are in the other. I hope that by the end of this Debate we shall have

"de-Humpty Dumptied" him and put him together again.
My first argument, before we come to the intrinsic merits of the regulations, is that this has been put through without either sufficient discussion or anything like general approval and support from the educational profession, whether the universities or the schools, and I think it would have been wise to have got that, even if the regulation itself were an entirely wise one. I of course join with my hon. and gallant Friend in having great sympathy with the personal difficulty of the Minister owing to the report of the Secondary Schools Examination Council, and if he were to plead those difficulties as an excuse for having made the regulation and then withdrawing it, there is nobody who would not have accepted his amende without complaint. But it is not an excuse for persisting in that difficulty when it is found that in the educational world there is not general support for these regulations.
Let me try to understand, so far as I can, the arguments for the regulations. The last time we debated this matter the right hon. Gentleman said:
The criticism of the minimum age is based upon an assumption that the new examination is the old system under a different name. But in fact it is a new examination and it is designed to serve entirely different purposes.
With great respect that is not quite so. We in this House are perfectly well aware that there is a new examination. We are not disputing that point at all. Then we are told that there is great danger in pushing many bright boys and girls into examinations and specialisations too early in life, because they have the knack of getting through examinations. Indeed, anybody who has been a schoolmaster and is still a parent needs no temptation to deny that. We are not denying that there are plenty of cases where it would be extremely unwise to push boys and girls too soon into examinations. The issue is whether that is a sort of matter which should be left to the schools and the parents to decide in each case what is the appropriate age according to what happens to be the development and maturity of each particular child; or whether it is a matter which can best be settled by central regulations.
It seems to me that when the right hon. Gentleman argues he argues on one side and for some reason the conclusion


he reaches is the other way round. Like my hon. and gallant Friend, I have very much difficulty in understanding the right hon. Gentleman's point of view. For instance when we were debating this matter last December he said:
Now the schools have established their standards they must have freedom, and the new examination is designed to give them that freedom, the freedom to educate children according to their age, ability and aptitude as laid down in the Act of 1944."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th December, 1948; Vol. 459, c. 1593–4.]
A fortnight later he went to the Headmasters' Conference when he used substantially the same words to them. He said:
What is the real significance of the Act? We have always understood the claim that the centre of the education system must be the individual and we have to educate each child according to his age, ability and aptitude.
And later he said:
The whole object of the set-up is to enable individuals to make the fullest possible progress in their chosen subjects.
He referred to the Norwood Committee's Report, and said there was need to give the schools the freedom which they had been given under the Education Act. I share my hon. and gallant Friend's difficulty in understanding what the right hon. Gentleman means by the use of this word "freedom." If he means by that the age at which their education is to take place is it to be settled by these central regulations?
The right hon. Gentleman has made familiar an argument drawn from the cricket field, when he said that when a test team is chosen the players were not selected because they were good cricketers some little time ago, but when they were playing at the top of their form at the moment. The right hon. Gentleman used that argument when we were choosing constantly changing test teams to play Australia, and they were being beaten in almost every match. Since then a regular test team has been sent to South Africa, and it has been victorious. I do not expect the right hon. Gentleman to change his political opinions because of that success in the cricket field.

Mr. Cove: Where is the hon. Gentleman's captain, the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler)?

Mr. Hollis: I prefer to discuss this Prayer rather than the personal engagements of my right hon. Friend even if I were aware of them. If I may be allowed I should like to turn to the topic we were discussing. If we must draw a parallel from the cricket field, it is not so much who would be chosen for a test team but who would be chosen to go on the ground staff or something like that. It would be extremely rare if it happened that a boy turned up at a county ground to join the staff and he bowled so well that he immediately went into the county side. It would frequently happen that he would be told, "You are the sort of a boy on whom it would be worth our while to keep an eye, because you are likely to prove to be up to county standard in the future." Therefore it is by no means a foolish thing that universities may often want to select people they think likely to be worthy of university education by their standard of education not solely immediately before they go up to the university but some little time before.
In defending the later age the right hon. Gentleman said that the bright child could surely with benefit keep more subjects than his two or three special ones going during his sixth form life. I remember a Fijian chief who appeared in the United States once and was horrified to find that all the boys and girls there were incarcerated in schools from the age of six until they were 16, and he said, "Why, that is just the time in life when they ought to be learning something." I agree up to a point with the remark of the right hon. Gentleman that the young people benefit by "keeping more subjects going," but it all depends on what is meant by the phrase "keeping more subjects going." I agree that the sixth form boy or girl who is specialising in some subject is all the better for taking an interest in some other subject and being talked to about it, but it does not necessarily follow that it is good for him to keep up and cram five separate subjects to examination pitch.
My hon. Friend has talked about the problem of the schools. I do not want to go into that at greater length but I want to say a word about the problem from the point of view of the universities. There is no doubt that this has worked out as a considerable imposition on the universities and the universities are


greatly concerned at it. I want to make one or two points about that. There are people who ask why the universities should object to age limits being imposed upon them because the universities themselves impose age limits. There are two replies to that. I would first say that, in itself, the fact that the universities impose age limits would not necessarily justify the Government's imposing age limits on universities. After all we do not have a State system of education in this country and the universities are entrusted to a large extent with the management of their own affairs. The fact that universities saw fit to do something would not in itself necessarily make it right for other people to impose such a system on the universities against their wishes.
Secondly, the universities impose an age limit for scholarships, which is quite a different thing. It is not a minimum but a maximum limit. They will not allow boys and girls to sit for scholarships beyond a certain age. A scholarship examination is of necessity a competitive examination in a much stricter and more definite sense than a general public examination one of the consequences of which may be to give a person a university education. The universities are doubtless well aware that there are occasions when it might happen that a boy or girl has not matured by the age of 18 but would be likely to mature afterwards and they would be delighted to give a scholarship on that person's work at the age of 19. However, when dealing with a competitive examination one has to see not only that justice is done but that justice is seen to be done. Therefore, out of fairness to the other candidates it is necessary to have regulations. As a general rule boys of 18 would be at a disadvantage when sitting against boys of 19 or 20.
The fact that the universities impose a maximum limit for directly competitive examinations is not in itself an argument for the Ministry to impose a minimum for examinations which are not competitive in anything like that strict sense.
In any event, as we know, it has imposed a problem upon the universities and, as the House knows, the universities have met together to solve it. Though nothing has been quite settled yet, it seems most probable that they are to set up this new entrance examination in which they will require candidates to

pass in the English language and in either four or five other subjects. Granted that these regulations are a compromise, and probably as little unsatisfactory as possible, yet it is not satisfactory, as both the schools and the universities feel most deeply.
As "The Times" said in its leading article on 4th February of this year:
The schools will face difficulties, but they have to recognise that these are created by the age-limit dictated by the Minister of Education and not by the universities.
It seems to me, therefore, and it is the basis of my case, that the right hon. Gentleman having been perhaps pardonably misled by the difficulties created by the Secondary School Examinations Council nevertheless is imposing upon the educational world a quite unnecessary difficulty, and he will earn the gratitude of the educational world even at this eleventh hour if he should prove himself big enough to recognise that a mistake was being made and to revise the regulation.
Therefore, I base my case in summary on these two points: first, that on its intrinsic merits we require a much more flexible system than that which is allowed to the country by these regulations; secondly, that we in this country up till now have not had a State system of education. Other countries have it. If, for instance, one goes to a school in the north of France and moves to the south, one can go on reading the same authors one was reading the day before, so I have been told. That has not been the system in this country. Only yesterday I was defending the right hon. Gentleman to an indignant constituent explaining that we in this country not only have a Minister of Education who cannot do everything he likes, but who does not want to be able to do everything he likes.

Mr. Tomlinson: Mr. Tomlinsonindicated assent.

Mr. Hollis: I am glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman nods. Therefore, the whole system of education in this country has not been a system of the imposition of central regulations from Whitehall either on schools or universities. That being so, as a matter of principle I view this new departure with the gravest apprehension because it is an invasion of the autonomy of the educational world by Whitehall, which is


gravely contrary to the educational traditions of this country. I most honestly and sincerely appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, even at this eleventh hour, to make a great name for himself in educational history by withdrawing these regulations.

9.18 p.m.

Mr. Dryden Brook: There has been a good deal of misunderstanding and misapprehension abroad in the educational world about this circular and this examination, and I wish I could think that that misunderstanding and misapprehension had been brought about by disinterested motives. However, when I read not long ago in "The Yorkshire Post" an article by a well-known headmaster in Leeds that the report of this advisory Council was the report of a committee which had been hand-picked by the Minister in order to give him his report, then I look with contempt at some of the agitation which has been worked up.
Hon. Members opposite have spoken tonight as though there is a universal objection to this examination and to this circular in the educational world. I have only found it in a very limited field. That field is limited to the grammar school section. After the contemptible reference by the headmaster to whom I have referred, I looked up the report of the Council for details of its constitution. I found that practically every educational interest was represented on it: universities, both on the examination boards side and the universities themselves; grammar school headmasters; independent schools; public schools; local education authorities, both through the Association of Education Committees and the County Councils Association; women teachers; the joint four, and prominent educationalists. I am given to understand that, in spite of the fact that the names of the members of the Council were announced by the Minister, the organisations which they represented were asked to nominate the names of the representatives.
If I may adapt a short statement made by the hon. Lady the Member for Coat-bridge (Mrs. Mann) a week ago, that Council laboured for some considerable time and in the end did produce something—they produced a completely

unanimous report. There was no dissentient voice or minority vote. While I do not believe that every individual member thought alike, or thought that this was the ideal solution to the problem, it was obvious that all of them thought that it was the best possible solution in the circumstances.
We on this side of the House, and particularly those of us who have made any study of education—I speak as a member of the local education authority for a considerable time—stand solidly behind the Minister in the steps he has taken. Let me explain the reasons for our taking this stand. The old examinations system, obviously, had broken down. The schools certificate examination was designed for two purposes: first, in part at any rate, to designate entry to a university; second, to give those who took a secondary education at that period a certificate that they had taken a secondary education and of their qualifications. But in later years what percentage of the children at secondary schools even sat for the school certificate examination? And would anyone today state that any university would accept the school certificate as the basis of entry to that university?
The whole problem now is that it is the higher school certificate that designates entry to a university. What has happened between the school certificate and the higher certificate? Let me quote the experience of one boy alone, a boy who gave his life for his country as a pilot in the Fleet Air Arm. Not very long before he died he wrote a letter criticising the basis of the curriculum in education, and particularly of the classics—the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) will be interested to know that this lad was a classical scholar at Oxford—in which he said that the place of classics in education would have to be radically altered. "Unless this is done," he said, "people like myself, with experience of the last two years, simply cannot know what we are talking about or what we are doing." That boy pleaded for a wider conception of what education should be between the school certificate and higher certificate stages.
The hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland) and the hon. Member for Devizes spoke of freedom in the schools. The only logical


solution to their problem of freedom would be for each school to have its own external examinations, choose its own time and choose its own age. That is not the kind of freedom we want in an educational world such as we envisage. I have looked up the speech of the hon. and gallant Member of 17th December in reference to this problem of freedom. He made a quotation from the Report of the Secondary School Examinations Council. It was:
The schools alone are in a position to decide what is best for their pupils, and need the utmost freedom and flexibility to give effect to their judgment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th December, 1948; Vol. 459, c. 1588.]
He quoted that against the Minister, but forgot to quote the last few words of the paragraph, which are:
This need for freedom underlies the proposals we have outlined.
I put that forward as a complete refutation of the point of view of the hon. and gallant Member on 17th December.
This examination is not meant for the work of junior forms. The junior forms will be covered by internal examinations. The examination does not concern the majority of the scholars even in the grammar schools. It may possibly only concern 10, 15, or 20 per cent. of those children. It is meant only for those for whom an examination is essential in after life, those going forward to the university or who want a set examination for the purposes of the professional bodies into whose employment they may be going. Everyone wants to know as a result of a certificate not what a child knew, or his capacity two years before he left school, but they want to know, and the universities in particular want to know, the child's capacity on leaving school, and that also applies to the business man. When the hon. and gallant Member questions the validity of the school report in the business world, he should refresh his mind as to what was contained in the Report of the Council. He forgets that the Report provides not only for external examinations but internal examinations as well. Paragraph 16 reads:
Individual secondary schools should carry out systematic internal examinations based on and designed to suit the particular courses and the pupils following them.
Sub-paragraph (b) reads:
The Ministry and Local Education Authorities (singly or in groups) should pro-

mote and encourage experiments in the conduct and assessment of internal examinations: e.g. (i) through the association of teachers from neighbouring schools or areas in the setting and marking of examination papers, (ii) through external assessment on wider lines by appropriate assessors.
It seems to me that we are at the beginning of a new era in respect of the relationship of the school and the outside world, and from these examinations and school record cards, if properly designed and properly assessed, we shall get a much more reliable and valuable indication to the business man wanting a boy from school than has hitherto been the case. I know, most of my hon. Friends know, and hon. Members opposite know that the business world today is looking askance at the certificates and reputations handed to them by the schools today. Because some of us believe that through this system we shall be able to build up a much more objective test and one which is much more reliable, we are in favour of the examination which my right hon. Friend has decided to bring about.
I come to the problem of the bright child. I cannot understand the attitude of mind of hon. and right hon. Members opposite on this question. If there is a problem of the bright child in the grammar school, that is an indictment of the school and not of the child, nor of this system of examinations. The grammar school is not the only school which has to deal with this problem of the bright child. It is universal throughout our educational system. In particular, the rural school has it, as have the infants' school and the junior school. [Laughter.] To speak of the rural school, the infants' school and the junior school and not of the grammar school may be a subject of laughter to hon. Gentlemen opposite, but it is not a laughing matter to the common people of this country, who have to send their children to those schools. The bright child is a problem there. If there is a problem of the bright child in the grammar school, it is the problem and responsibility of the staff to see that the bright child does not suffer.
Three different levels in the examination are suggested in this scheme. The bright child can take this examination at any level and can go on developing his capacities until he is ready to take the examination. I should like to ask hon. Members this question: if the bright child


takes the school certificate examination at a very early age, what does he do after taking that examination? He will be wasting his time far more than he would by taking the examination later. Before he takes the examination he will have the opportunity of continuing on a much broader basis than he has ever had in the past. Therefore, it seems to me that this problem of the bright child is a red herring which is being drawn across the path of this new departure in order to create prejudice.

Mr. Henry Strauss: The hon. Member asks, "What happens to the bright child after he has taken the examination at an early age?" Does that not depend entirely upon the curriculum of the sixth form? If it is a good school and there is a well-run sixth form curriculum, will not the bright child be extremely well catered for?

Mr. Tomlinson: Then what has that school to fear in the new proposals?

Mr. Brook: The Minister has taken out of my mouth the words I was about to use. If the hon. and learned Gentleman is right, if the good school has nothing to fear, neither will the bright boy have anything to fear in the good school if he does not take the examination until he is 16. If it is a good school in one way it is a good school in the other. It is matter for internal organisation in the school.

Mr. H. Strauss: Does the hon. Member then say that this change against which we are praying will make no change in the curriculum of these forms?

Mr. Brook: Not at all. I am not here to say that no re-organisation of the sixth form is necessary. I believe that considerable reorganisation in the sixth form is necessary. That is one of the problems, and it is one of the reasons for the agitation against this new set-up, because it involves for the staffs of our secondary schools, particularly our grammar schools, a looking anew at the problem of the sixth form. That will be wholly good for the children in the sixth form and for the staffs also. The universities do not say to their bright children "You can take your examination ahead of the period

or ahead of your colleagues in the same group." It seems to me that at every stage in the educational world there is this problem of the bright student. It is a question of organisation.
The idea behind the agitation seems to me to be that we are still in the world of competitive examinations. I believe that the day of competitive scholarships has gone, that the day of competitive scholarships belonged to a period when we had no broad highway to the university but rather a greasy pole. We have now reached a stage when if, as I hope my right hon. Friend will in the near future, we implement the report of the working party on scholarships, we shall have reached the point where any child who reaches a certain standard of achievement—which may have to be acceptable to universities—will have access to the universities. Under this constitution there can be no question of another problem which is agitating some people, and that is the question of distinction of credits in relation to the examinations. There can be no place for distinctions and credits under this scheme. That is not the job for the new Examinations Council.
The job of the schools is not to turn out specialists, but to turn out all-round and complete individuals. It is the job of the universities to turn out specialists. It will no longer be true that our secondary schools and grammar schools shall be allowed to impinge on the specialist work of the university. All this new system does is to afford the opportunity for more co-operation between the grammar and secondary schools and the universities so that they may work out a satisfactory scheme in which all may have an opportunity to play their part.

9.36 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: We are indebted to the hon. and gallant Member for Horn-castle (Commander Maitland) for affording us the chance of discussing this very important regulation before it is finally passed and confirmed. I only deplore that this Debate has already taken a completely party line. The hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle said, "We, on this side of the House," as if everybody on this side must be in agreement. I am very sorry that the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) is not here himself, but I was very worried


about the arguments used by the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Brook). He said—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think in fairness to my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden that it should be stated that he is ill, otherwise he most certainly would have been here.

Commander Maitland: When I used the expression, "We on this side of the House" I thought I had the right to say that we had tried to implement the desire of the examination council to have the matter fully discussed. That is what I wanted to do and to explain why I was bringing this forward. There was no party politics about it.

Mr. Lindsay: It is not a question of whether there is or there is not party politics. Anybody who has listened to the Debate up to date, and heard the cheers and counter-cheers, would see that there is a very deep class division on this. I am endeavouring to make the point that at the present moment it is not a purely educational Debate, but that it is much wider. There is nothing wrong about that, except that it is rather deplorable in a sense that it still exists in Great Britain, particularly in England and Wales; but there it is. When the hon. Member for Halifax says that this is only an agitation coming from a limited number of people representing grammar schools, what does he think he is saying? Does he know that he is talking about half a million children; 250,000 boys and 250,000 girls; 2,000 schools; that they produced in the last 45 years the greatest scientists and scholars in this country? That is not a limited thing. It is a very important part and I rather doubt—

Mr. Tomlinson: In regard to the use of the expression that everybody in those schools was opposed to it, the assistant masters of those schools certainly were not.

Mr. Lindsay: I am coming to that. I did not say everybody in the grammar schools was opposed to it. The hon. Member opposite was suggesting that the agitation came from a limited group which represented the grammar schools. I only wish to say say that it is very much wider and a very important part of the education field.

Mr. Brook: If the agitation comes from grammar schools or a section of them, surely that is a limited part of the educational world in which we are living, even though it may loom larger in the estimation of the hon. Member than in my own estimation.

Mr. Lindsay: I did not want to get into such controversial matters so early. The point is that if one represents 500,000 children and 2,000 schools—

Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman speaks of 500,000 children and 2,000 schools. Is he aware that the Association of Assistant Masters and the Association of Assistant Mistresses, who represent most of the teachers of schools in this country, signed the report of the Secondary Schools Council?

Mr. Lindsay: Really, the hon. Member must credit me with a little knowledge about this. I want to make the point that one hon. Member said that this was a limited group. I think that the reaction to the circular and the regulations has been very healthy. I do not think that anybody looking across Europe today who is aware, as we are, of our own heritage of freedom in education, can like very much a ministerial edict which has such profound effects, as the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) said, on the content of the curriculum even when that has been buttressed by an important body such as the Secondary School Examinations Council. We must remember that Sir Philip Morris who was chairman of the Council said:
It was achieved in order to get a comprehensive set of proposals with which they did not disagree too much.
In other words, it was a most difficult problem.
Though the Minister may not know it, I am actually speaking, on balance, in favour of what he is trying to do. I think it is wise today to consider the matter purely on its merits. We should not consider the political aspects of it, but as far as possible—as the hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland) did in his speech—we should consider it on educational merits. Once we admit, as the Act does, secondary education for all, which is an important consideration involved in the Act; once we sever the relations between


the school certificate and the matriculation, which many hon. Members probably wish to do—nobody likes it very much, and once we aim at one examination which has a distinct purpose about it instead of two or three at 11, 15 and 17, one of which was rapidily becoming rather valueless, some sort of solution on these lines is inevitable. On the face of it, to set an age limit seems somewhat arbitrary especially when it is set for the whole country. I warn the hon. Member for Halifax that if he thinks we have come to the end of competitive examinations for the universities he is wildly mistaken. There will be competitive examinations for the universities during the next ten years which will be as severe as any there ever have been.
I have just been re-examining the Minister's report on awards. It is high time we had a full Debate on that subject because the implications of the Report are so far-reaching that they affect very seriously the whole of the problem we are tackling today. Why has there been this large amount of misunderstanding? The Minister intervened a few minutes ago and said that, when he went, the Association of Headmasters changed their views. Whether or not it was due to his persuasive speech, I do not know—

Mr. Tomlinson: No.

Mr. Lindsay: I could quote many resolutions which have been passed. The fact remains that the independent schools, through the headmasters' conference, and a great many other bodies representing grammar school masters, were against it. They did not like it. Some have come to the point of saying—they use different words—that they will accept it and try to make it work. Even people like Dr. Eric James, of Manchester Grammar School, have said reluctantly that they will do that.
All I am trying to say is that if there is a very important reform which is accepted reluctantly, then I think either there is something wrong in the way it has been put across or else the reform itself needs rather careful inquiry. I do not like the reform to be accepted reluctantly, nor do I quite understand the Minister's phrase, quoted in the "Times Educational Supplement" on 8th January, that he had not imposed the

minimum age solely in order to protect the modern schools. I shall be grateful if, when he replies, he can explain that because as I have said to some of my hon. Friends who represent another point of view in the teachers' world, I should like to hear the real story.
Dr. Jeffery, who cannot be dismissed—after all he is Director of the Institute of Education at London University—said:
The main strength of the attack, however it comes, must unfortunately come from other branches of the teaching profession and particularly from those who think that the progress of the modern school will be assisted by the abolition of the school certificate. Thus the profession is divided at a time when it is all-important that it should be united.
That quotation is worthy of attention. I hoped very much that we should get more and more unity within this great teaching profession. There is a different view to some extent on this matter and it is best that we should face it. What did the Minister mean? Was there any danger of the school certificate being taken by the modern schools and did that have any influence in the final decision? There are cases where a compromise has to be reached and the phrase of Sir Philip Morris is, I think, a perfectly reasonable one. He said:
… with which they did not disagree too much.
Do not let us describe this as some tremendous reform on which everybody is agreed. As I see it, the real problem is the problem of freedom. Here I disagree with the hon. Member for Devizes; I think he confuses freedom of education with the examination system. I have been brought up to believe that one of the biggest difficulties of freedom of education in England has been this very interfering examination, which, after all, comes right in the middle of secondary school life and which changes the whole life of the school. You cannot get away from it. If you are to sever that, the case for keeping an examination about that age is not very strong and, therefore, I think we have to discuss the question of freedom in new terms. If the argument is that the scaffolding—and I think that is the phrase the Minister used—of examinations has served its purpose—that is at 11 years of age or 15 years of age and so on—we have to make some very big changes in


primary and secondary schools to see that another process of selection takes its place.
About 25 years ago I used the phrase, and I dare repeat it today, that what we have to do is to reach selection by differentiation and not by elimination. In others words, we do not want to select and eliminate people; we want to see them going down different paths. That implies more and more individual attention. It implies more opportunities for the average boy. I think it implies foreign language teaching in the primary schools, as it does in the preparatory schools. These are absolutely fundamental and radical changes if we are to have, in spite of what the hon. Member for Devizes says, a national system of education.

Mr. Hollis: State system, I said.

Mr. Lindsay: It may be run by 140-odd local education authorities, but in the Act it is now described as a national system. It means, also, more and more better paid and university trained teachers right through, otherwise this examination will not work.
One good thing which, I think, has emerged from all this is that by the force of this the schools and universities have for the first time been compelled to sit down together. It may be a sort of indirect result, but I think it is a good thing. I do not agree that the universities themselves are blameless in this matter. In one of the Universities which I have the honour to represent—Bristol—they are very strongly in favour. I cannot speak for the whole University, but, naturally, the Vice-Chancellor is because he is the Chairman of the Secondary Schools Association Council; but there are other distinguished members of the University who have discussed the matter with local schools in Bristol, and quite irrespective of the Vice-Chancellor, are in favour. There is also, of course a very distinguished professor at Manchester, Dr. Graham Cannon, who speaks in very strong language about what he calls the "ludicrously" high standard in sixth forms obtaining now, being equal to that of a man in his first year at a university.
It is all very well for us here, who are not experts, to try to give our views, but I find it very confusing when a professor from Manchester says one thing and a

professor from Oxford says exactly the opposite about the standards in sixth forms in the secondary schools. But unless there is, for instance, some form of inter-availability between the universities, unless there is a much better form of school records, and many other reforms, this system is not going to work very easily. I have to take note again of what the High Master of Manchester Grammar School says. That happens to be a school which has obtained more of these scholarships than almost any other. He says that some of the conditions being imposed, or likely to be imposed, by the universities on the schools will make it quite impossible to burden the boys with the number of subjects which will be necessarily required, and which will affect the boys' freedom, especially in a school like that, where the experiments which have been made in non-examination subjects are possibly as important as the winning of the open scholarships themselves. Therefore, it does seem to me that that means a very big change is necessary in the whole attitude of the schools and the universities.
I would say that when the phrase "general education" is used—as it very often is—it seems to me that this country needs to do some absolutely radical thinking again, because as I read these documents I find some people put together mathematics or science with one foreign language plus two art subjects and say that that is a balanced curriculum. I should say that it is high time for us to do some such work as Dr. Conant did in Harvard five years ago, who produced a first-class book called "General Education in a Free Society." We have not done that yet.
My last point is this. I think matters demand very wise and new statesmanship from schools and universities. I quoted before from Professor Cannon. He says, "Let the universities lower the standard and broaden the content of the open examinations." If that is the point of view of such a professor, I think we want to know who is right—those who say the standards are declining, and those who, like Professor Cannon, of Manchester, say we want to lower the standard and broaden the content of these examinations. As to our making experiments in this field, the Minister has I think, put forward a point of view several times. He is hoping that schools


will be free to make experiments which they could not before, because of the school leaving examination.
Well, that is my hope, too. But it does mean an entirely new trust in the schools; it does mean a new sense of responsibility; it does mean we have to pay the teachers better and get better grammar school teachers as well as others, otherwise the teachers will not be capable of doing this individual work. It is not a question of taking classes of 30 or 40. More individual work will be needed under this scheme than for the higher certificate. I hope very much that the most important English institution which we have—the sixth form—is not to be in any way injured. [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite say that that is perhaps inevitable under this scheme, but I do not think that they are entitled to say that at all. First of all, it has not been tried, and, secondly, there is no doubt that not only Professor Bragg, the eminent scientist, but a great many other people are saying that they wish boys to come up to the universities with a broader general knowledge. Not only the young man quoted by the hon. Member for
Halifax but many others have stressed this important point.
I think that in this country we need to broaden the whole content of secondary education. That is my view for what it is worth. If this reform will assist us to do that, and if the examination which, after all, has three levels—scholarship, advanced and pass—can be taken between the ages of 16, 17 and 18, it does not seem to me to matter, so long as the professional institutions are looked after and there is not a second full examination for the universities. That I think is an educational problem; how, by a single examination, we are to select 11,000 people to go to the university, no one yet knows. There can be over-specialisation under the old scheme or under the new scheme, and everything now depends on this self-imposed responsibility of the schools, on the public attitude to secondary education, on the trust given by the universities to the schools, and on a new meaning being given to general education.
Other countries—France, Germany and the U.S.A.—are facing the same problem today. I on balance, although

I think the problem is a very difficult one, would not vote against this regulation, because I do not believe that this new set-up is trying to do what the old school certificate was doing. It is trying to do a new thing. If we are to have a national regulation at all, and we must have if we are to have an external examination, there is nothing that should limit giving a real freedom to the schools if this is put into practice honestly and the integrity and standards of secondary education are maintained.

9.58 p.m.

Mr. Lipson: May I bring the Debate back to what I consider to be the real issue raised by the Prayer? It is the objection to the Minister in saying that the examination shall not be taken by any child until he or she has reached the age of 16. That is the real point. We are not objecting to the changes in the examination and other matters that have been raised in the Debate; it is that particular issue and the action of the Minister which has caused me personally very great concern and that is the reason why I shall vote for the Motion.
This action of the Minister is an entirely new departure in the relation of the Minister of Education and the State and the schools. Hitherto our schools had been the freest in the world—they were actually freer than the schools in the Dominions. The teachers have been free to choose their own textbooks and free to decide about the content of their teaching. Something which was extremely precious and something which, hitherto, the teachers have had the right to decide themselves on educational grounds, and from their knowledge of the individual child, was when that particular child should take an examination. That is the freedom which is now being taken away by the Minister. I know he says that he does it in the name of freedom, but I would remind him of what Madame Roland said at the guillotine:
Liberty! What crimes are committed in thy name.
This is only the first step taken by the Minister. I do not believe that either he or his Parliamentary Secretary would wish to go further along this road; but they have created a precedent, and I ask myself what use is likely to be made in the future of this example they have set.


We have seen what use is made in totalitarian countries of the powers taken to control what actually goes on in the schools, and at a time when these things are still fresh in our memories, and when we are feeling—are likely to feel for a long time—the consequences of the actions of States in trying to turn the schools to their own purposes, we are naturally very concerned that this step should be taken. In a matter of this kind it is the first step that counts; the first step, which creates a break in relations, is the most serious of all, and if one takes one step along this road—this dangerous road, as I think—it seems to me that it would be easier for others to go still further—much further than I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would like to think the State would ever go in interfering with the schools.
In addition to that, a right is taken from the parents. Hitherto parents have had some say in the question of when their children should take an examination, and they have consulted with the head teachers. I know from my own experience that frequently there is a difference of opinion between the headmaster and a parent as to whether or not a child should sit for an examination. Personally, I have always taken the view, so far as it rested with me, that if a parent wanted his child to take an examination at a particular age, then he had the right to have his wishes respected.

Mr. George Thomas: The hon. Gentleman seems to be making the point that the State should not interfere in deciding the age at which a child should take an examination. Did the hon. Gentleman take part in the earlier Debate, when we decided the age of selection for secondary schools? This House decided the age at which examinations or selection should take place at one end, and we are now discussing the other end.

Mr. Lipson: I do not think the two things are comparable. As was pointed out with reference to the universities, it is a quite natural thing to say that admission to a particular school shall be at a certain age; but it seems to me quite a different thing to say that in no circumstances should a child be allowed to take an examination, even though his teachers and his headmaster want him to do so,

or even though his parents want him to do so, if the State says, "No, you must not." I believe that to be an unwarrantable interference with the rights of the teachers and of the parents. I would remind the Minister that these children are not his children; they are the children of the parents, and I believe that on the question whether or not the child should sit for an examination, the parent has a right, and the State is wrong to take away that right.

Mr. Tomlinson: Would the hon. Gentleman say that the age of 15 or 16 did not affect the argument if a child were capable of taking the examination at 11?

Mr. Lipson: The Minister does not want to take up an absurd position. As the school certificate examination is at present constituted, a child may enter between 14 and 16. One of my own children took the certificate at 14 and passed with a number of credits. Other children have done the same. As a parent I should have objected had the State said that she should not take the examination at that age, and that she must wait until she was 16. I do not think it would have been good for her. It is a bad thing in education as in other directions that the rate of advance should be the rate of the average.

Mr. Chetwynd: Under this system, when the hon. Gentleman's child reached the age of 16, she would take an examination which possibly was of a higher grade than that which she took at 14.

Mr. Lipson: Yes, but if a particular child—and I will keep my own out of it—is able to take even this new examination before reaching 16, what right has the State to come along and say that he or she shall not do so? That is something to which I personally object. It is true that the Minister has been fortified by the views of the Secondary School Examinations Council. In reply to the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Brook), I do not for one moment question the qualifications of the members of the Secondary School Examinations Council who came to that decision, and I dissociate myself from the kind of remark which apparently has been used by a correspondent in "The Yorkshire Post." I want the case against the regulations,


just as I want the case for the regulations, to be judged not by the worst arguments anybody can produce, but by the best.
I am surprised—and it is something of a mystery to me—how the Secondary School Examinations Council came to a unanimous decision. I think they did it in their individual capacities, judging from the information that was available at the time, but what I do know is that in coming to this decision many of them did not represent the views of large numbers of people whom they were supposed to represent on that Council. That is nothing surprising. The same sort of thing happens to Members of Parliament. The views they express from time to time are often repudiated by their constituents, by trade union leaders, and so on. In a matter of this kind what is important is whether, in coming to this decision, the Council were speaking for the overwhelming majority of teachers, who will have to work this new arrangement? The answer to that, I believe, is "No."
For these reasons, I ask the Minister to withdraw these regulations, at any rate for the time being, and consult further with the members of the teaching profession. There is no doubt that if the right hon. Gentleman persists in forcing these regulations through now, he will disturb a great many of the teachers in this country, and he will lose the confidence of many of them. It is important that the Minister of Education should be able to feel that he has the wholehearted good will and support of the members of the teaching profession in the very responsible office that he holds. It seems to me that if he could agree to withdraw these regulations and think again on this matter, he would be rendering a real service to education as a whole. I do not believe that these regulations are wise or necessary, and I hope that on reflection the Minister will realise that this is a matter in which more haste will mean less speed.

10.10 p.m.

Mr. Ralph Morley: I shall try to answer as rapidly as I can some of the arguments put forward by the hon. and gallant Member for Horn-castle (Commander Maitland) and the

hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis). I shall first answer the main argument of the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) who asks what right the State has to dictate at what age a child shall take a certain examination. It would be just as logical to ask what right the State has to dictate until what age a child must compulsorily remain at school or the lowest age at which a child will be accepted at school. The State dictates those things in the general interest of the children of the country. We can say to the children, "You must not take a certain examination until you reach the age of 16," if such a course is in the general interests of education as a whole and in the interests of the children. We believe that the laying down of a minimum age of 16 for taking the general certificate of education is in the interests of both the children and the schools.
The hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle and the hon. Member for Devizes tried to give the House the impression that the regulation was dictation on the part of the Minister of Education but for many years past, leading and representative opinion in educational circles in the country has been in favour of raising the minimum age at which the children can take an external examination. That recommendation was implicit in the Norwood Report and also in the Spens Report, and it has now been made unanimously by the Secondary School Examinations Council.
I want to say quite definitely that that Council was representative of all kinds of teachers in the country, in all grades of schools. The Assistant Masters' Association and the Assistant Mistresses' Association were represented on the Council and they represent the majority of the teachers in our secondary grammar schools. The representatives of both those organisations signed the Report. Did they represent the opinions of the rank and file who selected them to go there? If they did not represent their opinions, the members of the Assistant Masters' Association or the Assistant Mistresses' Association must select other representatives in future or nobody will take any notice of what those representatives say upon some other matter. Of course they represent the views of the majority of the teachers in the secondary grammar schools.
The Headmasters' Association and the Headmistresses' Association were also represented on the Council and they signed the Report. The local education committees were also represented on the Council and they signed the Report, and a large number of eminent educationists were sitting on that Council in their individual capacities and they also signed the Report. There has never been a more unanimous decision on the part of thoroughly representative educational and teachers' organisations in the educational history of the country.
The hon. Member for Cheltenham should know that the majority of teachers back the decision to have the minimum age for the general certificate of education at 16, and I am surprised to hear him exhort the Minister not to carry out the decision because a number of teachers do not agree with it. The overwhelming majority of teachers are in favour of the decision which has been made by the Minister acting upon the unanimous recommendations of the Secondary School Examinations Council. The Minister did not immediately act upon the recommendations of that Council. He consulted all the interests concerned. He received representatives from practically every educational organisation in the country after the Report had been issued. He discussed the matter fully with them. As a result of those discussions the Minister came to the decision that, on balance, the right thing to do was to give effect to the report of the Secondary School Examinations Council.
I think that the decision to have the minimum age of 16 for the taking of the general certificate of education is one which will benefit the clever boy more than anybody else. It will not affect the average boy to any extent because the average age of passing the school certificate examination in the past was 16 years three months and, in these regulations, the boys will be taking the examination between 15 years eight months and 16 years eight months. So the average boy will be taking the examination at about the same time as he has always taken it in the past. Of course in the past there were clever little boys who took the school leaving certificate and passed it at the age of 14¾ and sometimes at the age of 14½. What happened to those clever little boys after

they had taken and passed the school leaving certificate at that early age? They did the same things over and over again for the next three or four years. Sometimes they took the higher school certificate two or three times. They indulged in premature specialisation.
The hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland) said, quite rightly, that these clever little boys who took the school certificate and passed it so very early would become the future leaders of the nation and, if they do not become the future leaders of the nation they would probably be the leaders in whatever minor sphere of action they entered in after-life. I ask the hon. and gallant Member, do we want the future leaders of the nation to be narrow specialists who have spent four or five years of their lives up to the time of passing the school certificate examination until at 19 they go to the university learning more and more about less and less? Do we want the future leaders of the nation to drop the humanities or to drop the study of science at the age of 14½ and specialise in their universities on a narrow range of subjects? Surely we want the future leaders of the nation to have an all-round general liberal education, to have a wide framework of ideas into which they can fit the problems which will be presented to them.

Commander Maitland: The hon. Gentleman asked me a question and I shall be pleased to answer him. First, he misquoted me. It was not the children who had passed the examination when very young to whom I referred as being the natural leaders. I referred to all the groups of children who come under this order, all the children who will take this examination. I said that out of their ranks will come the leaders of this country. I also say this, that history has shown, quite recently too, that children who have taken this examination have specialised and have been able to be perfectly wide, broad-minded people. There are many examples.

Mr. Morley: If the hon. and gallant Member was referring to all the children who will take this examination at the age of 16, then fixing the age at 16 will mean that all the children who will take it will have had a broad, general education in a number of subjects and will not have been subjected to undue specialization,


and so they will benefit themselves and the nation when they grow older. It is a fact that, in the past, the universities have complained strongly about the excessively specialised nature of the knowledge which the entrants to the universities today bring with them on account of having taken the school certificate at this early age and having spent the succeeding years in specialisation. It must be pointed out also that the universities themselves set a minimum age at which their degrees can be taken. The boy and girl enter the university at the age of 18 but however clever they may be, they are not allowed to take their final degree until three years afterwards, at the age of 21. The universities themselves lay down a minimum age at which the final examination can be taken.
The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) complained that that meant a loss of freedom. Those of us who support the recommendation of the Examinations Council, however, think that it will mean a very considerable extension of freedom for our grammar schools. It will make the examination the servant of education and not its master, as it has been in the past. It will allow teachers in grammar schools to plan their curriculum according to the aptitudes and abilities of their pupils. It will banish undue specialisation and give to the able grammar school teacher—I do not think that able teachers in grammar schools complain about the recommendations of the Secondary Schools Examination Council—the freedom they have lacked in the past: the freedom to adopt modern, flexible methods; to be free from being confined in the straitjacket of an external examination system, and the freedom to adapt their teaching methods to modern ideas and to give individual attention to children from the age of 11 at least to the age of 16 when they take this new external examination.
I hope, and am sure, that the Minister will stick to his guns. By these regulations he has put the coping stone on the great Act of 1944, which said that we should have a system which would give education according to age and ability to every child in the land. Those regulations will enable that education, according to age, ability and aptitude, to be given for the first time to all the pupils in our grammar schools.

10.23 p.m.

Mr. Wilson Harris: I wish there were time, but hasten to say I realise there is not, to discuss the very interesting speech we have just heard from the hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Southampton (Mr. Morley). I would only say, in regard to his references to the Secondary School Examinations Council, that although that body was unanimous, it is surely open to this House to disagree with its conclusions if it feels that they were wrong. Indeed, it is the duty of this House to consider those conclusions and to form its opinion about them.
Although that Council was unanimous it is not the case, I submit, that its findings represented the views of by any means all the bodies represented on it. I have the greatest regard for the representative of Cambridge University—I was writing to him only yesterday on another subject—but it is notorious that Cambridge University, rightly or wrongly, by a great majority of its members disagrees with the conclusions of that Council. I have equal regard for the very distinguished headmaster of Westminster School, Mr. Christie, but it is notorious that the Headmasters' Conference, of whom he is a member, have repudiated the findings of that Council and entirely disagree with him. It would be quite wrong, therefore, to say that because the Council was unanimous its conclusions represent the opinion of all the bodies comprising it. They do nothing of the sort.
My objection to the regulations can be very briefly stated. I object to them because they represent the iron hand of Whitehall clamped down upon the schools of this country. It is one of the few defects of the admirable Administration that fills the benches opposite that it shows very little regard administratively for the individual. It believes in legislating for the herd, for the whole mass. In no part of the social life of this country is such a system more disastrous than in the field of education. When we come to consider the individual child, I do not believe that the Minister and his officials know nearly as much about what is right for the child as do its parents. I do not believe they know as much about what is right for it as its makers. It appears to me to be a


grave invasion of freedom, particularly parental freedom, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) said, that the right hon. Gentleman should endeavour to do this thing.
A great many criticisms have been made of the schools pushing on the bright child and of undue specialisation. I do not know to what schools those criticisms refer. I have some knowledge of the schools of this country. In an earlier and more respectable period of my life, I was teaching in one of them for two years. I have been on the boards of two schools and am on one now, and I do not believe in this argument about overstrain and over-specialising for examinations. I do not share the view which seems to be prevalent, that examinations are a bad thing in themselves, that they should he as few as possible and put off as long as possible. I believe they are valuable in getting people working and keeping them on their toes. I passed the higher certificate examination when I was 15, when I was 16, when I was 17 and when I was 18. [Laughter.] When hon. Members contemplate the result, I am sure they will feel any further words are unnecessary. [Interruption.] And of course I was not, as the hon. Member for Southampton suggested, learning the same thing over and over again. There was a different history period each year different set books in classics and in English literature each year and by taking an examination over and over again one gets a steadily broadening education.
As to specialisation, whatever the actual curriculum of the school may be everyone knows that in the case of the independent schools at any rate the whole school is pulsating with different interests; there is the natural history society, the debating society, craftswork and scouting—everything that militates against narrow specialisation. Certainly an extra examination at a particular age is not needed as a prevention of specialisation. The right hon. Gentleman represents Molotov in certain particulars. It pains me to say that, for I have a high regard for him, but I must add my appeal to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham and others. I think in all seriousness that a grave situation is arising in that he is throwing himself

athwart the prevalent opinion of the universities and the prevalent opinion among headmasters, whereas he ought to carry both with him as far as he can. It will be a serious situation if we have a contest—which I see arising—between the Minister and the universities and headmasters. I think it is in the highest interests of education that he should think a little longer before he takes what I regard as a disastrous step in this matter.

10.28 p.m.

Mr. Heathcoat Amory: I am sorry that on this occasion I cannot find myself in agreement with the conclusions of the hon. Member for Southampton (Mr. Morley) for whose experience and wisdom I have very great admiration. It seems to me that two aims implicit in the 1944 Act are to preserve the present high standards of our older education institutions and to help build up the traditions and extend the achievements of the newer schools. Can these aims be reconciled? They can, but the danger is lest in trying to help with the second aim, we fail in the first one. I think the majority of the secondary modern schools which are not too big are getting on very well and getting their roots into the ground, but I suggest that it would be a great disservice to education if in trying to help them we did anything which made it more difficult for the older grammar schools to maintain their present high standards. If the Minister is to be true to the traditions of our education, as I am sure he wishes to be, he has two obligations in this matter; first of all, to secure as great a measure of agreement as he can, and secondly, to make sure that the minority are not unduly coerced. The hon. Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland) in the Adjournment Debate quoted a very important paragraph in the Report—paragraph 30, which says:
Schools alone are in a position to decide what is best for their pupils and need the utmost freedom and flexibility to give effect to their judgments.
The hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) gave us a picture of the right hon. Gentleman with his head in one Division Lobby and his legs trailing across the House into the other Division Lobby. This picture is possibly a little difficult for us to visualise,


but I am perplexed by some of the utterances of the right hon. Gentleman in this matter. He said recently:
We do not have children for examinations, but examinations for children.
He also said:
I trust the schools to do what is right.
I suggest that he is proceeding in this particular matter as if he believed almost exactly the opposite. I cannot feel otherwise than that consideration for the individual must mean that the individual child should take examinations when he is ready to do so.
The right hon. Gentleman has said that the Report of the Secondary Schools Examinations Council was unanimous, and that, of course, is a point to which considerable weight must be attached. The hon. Member for Horncastle has already drawn attention to the proviso in the recommendations of the Council that there should be full discussions and consultations. I think that indicates that they had a slight lack of confidence that their unanimity would be reflected by the same unanimity in the educational world at large. I think it is obvious that the unanimity of the Council was somewhat strained. I cannot help feeling that possibly the Council might have locked themselves into the room, as I believe juries do in a murder trial, until unanimity was reached.
It has been said that this regulation will give a charter of freedom to the grammar schools and greater opportunity to those schools and the universities. As an amateur, I do not want to put forward my own view, but surely very many of those concerned with the grammar schools and universities do not feel that way about it. I was a little shocked by what the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Brook) said. He seemed to imply that because the objections came mainly from one quarter and represented one section, therefore they could be disregarded. Surely, in education, above everything else, a minority must be respected. It seems to me that the schools are in a dilemma now. The Minister says, "Not before 16," and the universities still insist on a fair range of subjects. The result is inescapable. A clever boy or girl must either postpone entry into the sixth form for a year or

more or keep too many subjects going when he or she gets there.
The present system is obviously far from perfect. About a quarter of a century ago the hon. Member for Devizes and I were both members of the same sixth form. I passed my school certificate at a rather mature age and graduated into that distinguished assembly by a process called the "effluxion of time." The House will not be surprised to hear that the hon. Member for Devizes, on the other hand, passed his school certificate at an extremely early age. Surely, the House will realise the loss to the nation which would have resulted if the hon. Member for Devizes had been held back for a year or two and had not had the opportunity of that intimate association with the hon. Member for Tiverton at the most impressionable period of his career. Surely, two such extremely satisfactory results as arise in the example which I have quoted must give the right hon. Gentleman ground for thought.
The schools, I suggest, really do know best. I personally have revised my opinion of headmasters a good deal since I left school. I consider that the headmaster of a school which is not too big does generally know how the individual pupil is likely to get along best. A great headmaster of my own school, urging boys not to waste their time during the holidays, said, "I have known some boys so unenterprising that they have returned from the summer holidays having learned no more than if they had been at school." I will conclude by saying that I really do believe that in this matter of a minimum age the right hon. Gentleman is making a mistake—a mistake of a kind which it is extremely unlike him to make. He is, I think, imposing an unnecessarily arbitrary restriction upon the grammar schools, and indirectly upon the universities. I suggest that that is out of accord not only with the Act of 1944, but with our whole educational tradition. I hope that he will recognise this error and will retrieve the high reputation which he has, because I can assure him that it is not too late to do that, by removing this minimum age. By doing so, I believe he will show that he really does trust the schools, and that he will then be giving them the utmost freedom and flexibility, which I believe he wants them to have.

10.37 p.m.

The Minister of Education (Mr. Tomlinson): I think the fact that the House has not only listened, but listened with interest, to every speech which has been made on this subject, shows that there is public interest in what is taking place in educational circles. I believe that is to the good. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland), who moved this Prayer, suggested that the Secondary School Examinations Council had asked that consideration should be given to their findings before they were put into operation. I, as the Minister who received those recommendations from the Council, took it as an instruction. I regarded it as a duty to do what they suggested should be done. I do not think any of the bodies who have been associated with the opposition to the decision which has been reached would disagree that I consulted every one of the bodies interested before I came to that decision.
When it is suggested that I ought not always to say "No," I would remind hon. and right hon. Gentleman that I do not always say "No." I was taught, when I was quite young, to "Have courage, my boy." I have the courage to say "No" when I am not convinced that I ought to say "Yes." I can assure hon. Members that in the course of those discussions which took place, the people concerned were capable of putting their point of view, and did. Although I have not passed through the stages in which one is called upon to pass the school certificate or the higher school certificate, I still think I was capable of assessing the arguments put forward by the people who were seeking to prevent this change being made. I came to the conclusion—and I was of the same opinion after listening to all the arguments—that I was doing the right thing in implementing the recommendations of the Secondary School Examinations Council. Careful consideration was given to the arguments put forward by the people who were opposed to that recommendation, and at the same time the same careful consideration was given to the recommendations themselves.

Mr. H. Strauss: Does the right hon. Gentleman include the universities among those whom he consulted before he announced his decision?

Mr. Tomlinson: Yes, Sir. I had representatives consisting of six vice-chancellors of universities and I can assure the hon. and learned Member that the point of view of the universities was well and truly put. They were particularly courteous, and I listened for a long time, even though I was obdurate at the end of their argument.
It is a peculiar argument to use in this House if we are to assume that consultations have taken place only when a Minister has changed his mind. Following the advice of someone else, or agreeing with the recommendation made by someone else, may be an indication of the fact that there have been consultations. But I would submit that it can be equal evidence of consultations if a Minister does not change his mind, and continues to say, "No," particularly a Minister who takes a delight in saying, "Yes" when he can. It is true that after they had left I expressed sorrow that I was not able to agree entirely with their point of view.
The point which has been stressed more than any other has been this question of freedom. I have been studying for a long time not only the educational administration in this country, but, in particular, the organisation of our schools. I have depended upon expert advice in that direction, because of my lack of experience. I have been assured, not once but a score of times, by experts in all branches of education that to set up a curriculum and insist upon a certain type of examination meant that an individual who was running a school was not free to organise that school as he desired, but had to organise it in accordance with the curriculum laid down. If it is suggested that the success of that individual in meeting the requirements determines the success of his school I would say—not in any offensive way, because it is true not only of education but of other walks of life—that what are called "pot hunters" are not always the best representatives of their profession. That is a Lancashire expression—[HON. MEMBERS: "And a Scottish expression."]—If it is Scottish as well I will not say any more. The freedom which I am supposed to have interfered with is the freedom to use an examination for a purpose for which it is not intended, that is all. There is a difference between this new examination as contemplated and the


examination as we have it now. The whole object and purpose of all the representations made to me in order that the examination might be taken at an earlier age than that laid down is only, and for no other reason, in order that they might get a subject out of the way, forget all about it, and then go in for specialisation.

Mr. Wilson Harris: Surely the Minister will admit that as a child may not take an examination at 15 years, he is interfering with the freedom of the parent who may want that child to take it at 15? The right hon. Gentleman may not think he is interfering, but he is.

Mr. Tomlinson: In laying it down that a child must begin to attend school at five years one can be accused of interfering with the freedom of the parent. I am amazed that it has been suggested that this is the first step on the road to totalitarianism. An hon. Member suggested that this is in some way intended to strengthen the iron hand of Whitehall, enabling someone to clamp down on schools and universities.—[AN HON. MEMBER: "Not universities."]—Well, the suggestion was quite clearly that it was the first step to curtailing the power and liberty of the university. I suggest that hon. Members know far better than to believe the suggestion that there is to be any clamping down in that way.
The hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) also put forward the strange doctrine that it is essential to have unanimity before one can act. I think that it has been fairly evident in the Debate tonight that experts differ and that, if one waits for unanimity before proceeding to action in this field, no action is going to be taken. I made note of what the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Amory) had to say about the hon. Member for Devizes being an ornament to this House because he passed his school certificate examination at an early age; I wondered whether he would not have been two benches lower down if he had waited until he was 16. I have the feeling that it is very true that too early specialisation may lead to brilliance in one direction, but the prevention of that too early specialisation may lead to a better all-round product. When it is suggested that, by this action, I am placing some sort of imposition on the university, I must

say I think that the universities are big enough, and independent enough to look after themselves. They are doing so, and it is the duty, I think, of the universities, as I have told their representatives, to attempt to work in with what is described as the State system of education, because if the universities are independent we, in the main, provide the raw material, and it has been my object in this matter to carry the universities with me; and the recommendations of the universities will be made to fit in with the new examination when it comes into being.
It was suggested that this so-called arbitrary action of mine in leaving the minimum age at 15 years meant that it cut right across certain things because an individual might be born at a given time. There is always a difficulty in that direction. There is nothing in the regulations which prevents an examination from being conducted twice in the year, and the Secondary Schools Examination Council are examining that particular proposition at the moment. In other words, it might be possible to arrange that this examination is conducted twice in the same year.

Commander Maitland: That is a most interesting statement, but it is not in accordance with the circular which the Minister has sent round. This is a new announcement.

Mr. Tomlinson: No, it is not an announcement. I say there is nothing in the regulations which prevents the examination from being held twice in a year. At the present time they are drawn up to provide for one a year. There is nothing in them which would prevent us from providing for two examinations in a year if that were found to be a reasonable and workable proposition.
The Members who have spoken have pretty well answered each other. I will be quite honest, I have not heard a new argument tonight. I have heard all tonight's arguments before, and, after all, if hon. Members want me to say "Yes" they have to put up some different arguments from those to which I have said "No" so often, because there was a reason for saying "No." I have not heard anything tonight which leads me to think that I ought to change either my mind or my attitude towards this matter.
A great deal has been said about specialisation. I had intended to quote a


passage from a speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler), but in his absence I am not going to quote it. I will quote one passage on teachers' educational standards which has been suggested as a consequence of this new examination. This particular don from Leeds University says:
If any importance at all is attached to a reasonable width of knowledge and appreciation, it is difficult to follow the suggestion that a boy, who can easily get the certificate in seven or eight subjects at 15, would be considerably burdened by being expected to pass an elementary examination in some of them two years later.
In other words, if, as has been suggested, it is not a difficult thing to pass the school certificate as it is now at 15 years of age—although I would point out that the vast majority of them pass it at turned 16—then I claim they will be able to take the new examination in their stride. For all those reasons, and for reasons given by my hon. Friends which I do not want to go over again, I would ask the House not only to pass the regulations, but to assist in their implementation by pointing out the advantages of a change rather than dwelling on what might be described as the glories of the past.
There are just two other points. It was suggested that I was praying in aid some section of the secondary schools' staff and that I had some influence upon them. The assistant masters and mistresses in secondary schools both rejected resolutions at their annual conferences that were to be adopted for the purpose of disagreeing with the Minister in what he was proposing to do. The Headmasters' Association had a resolution on the agenda at their annual meeting deploring the action of the Minister in fixing a minimum age, but pointing out that they would do this, that, and the other. I went to address them. I was taken to task for doing so, it being suggested that I should have made my speech in this House before I had made it to the Headmasters' Conference. But

the effect of the speech on the Headmasters' Conference was that immediately I finished speaking somebody got up and moved that the passage deploring the action of the Minister should be withdrawn from the resolution, and the resolution was then carried unanimously. If that does not mean somebody else saying "Yes" where they had said "No" before, I do not know what does.
I am sorry that the Prayer of hon. Members who have prayed against this has not been answered in the way they expected, but prayers seldom are. I would remind the House that it is the duty of all of us to see to it to the best of our ability, not only to make these regulations work, but to make them work in the interests of the children rather than in the interests of any particular section.

Commander Maitland: I believe I have a right to speak on this Motion a second time. I should like to say that I am in absolute agreement with the Minister when he says that what he has listened to tonight has not convinced him. I find myself in exactly the same position. My feelings against this order are just as strong as when I came into the Chamber, and I have listened to every word that has been said. My hon. Friends will do what they think fit but I am not going to ask them to divide—I spoke to the whole House against this order—and it is for this reason. I want to make it quite plain that I do this as an earnest that we all, I think, feel that when this actually becomes a fait accompli and when it is working and difficulties arise, as undoubtedly they will, we wish it all success and will do everything we can to make a success of it.

Question,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Regulations, dated 17th February, 1949, entitled the Primary and Secondary Schools (Grant Conditions) Amending Regulations, No. 8, 1949 (S.I., 1949, No. 250), a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th February, be annulled

put, and negatived.

SQUIRES GATE FACTORY, BLACKPOOL

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Pearson.]

10.59 p.m.

Mr. A. R. W. Low: I wish to raise tonight the question of the Squires Gate factory at Blackpool and I desire to get from the President of the Board of Trade a clear statement on certain points relating to its future use. In particular, I desire to obtain from him an unqualified withdrawal of an attack which he made on 10th March against the Blackpool Corporation and I ask him to replace that attack by a gracious tribute to the great amount of co-operation which that Corporation has shown in working with him and his Department. I wish, first, to give the background. This is a large Government-owned factory of one-and-a-half million square feet floor space, the site of which belongs to Blackpool Corporation. It was built during the war for the production of aircraft and used for that purpose by Messrs. Vickers until the end of the war. From then until March 1948, the factory was used also by Messrs. Vickers for the building of aluminium houses in accordance with the Government's housing programme. Building on the housing contract then ended and the factory has since that date been to all intents and purposes unused; that is, for a year.
At the peak of production during the war, as many as 10,000 men and women were employed there. Since the war, and until 1948, the figure had been nearer 4,000. There is no doubt that of the 4,000 who were put out of work when the factory was closed, a large number have been found employment in or near Blackpool, but Ministry of Labour figures show that in mid-January of this year there were 2,000 more men and women unemployed than there were a year ago.
With a factory of this size, two obvious considerations must arise. First, there is the importance of the factory as a national asset and the availability of the factory in the terrible event of another war; secondly, there is the very considerable part which the factory could play in providing full employment for the people of Blackpool and the neighbourhood. Both these considerations have

always been in the minds of the Corporation of Blackpool, my hon. Friend, the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Roland Robinson), myself, and—I think I can say—all the Government Departments concerned. Blackpool Trades' Council has also made its views clear.
When the aircraft contract was nearing its end in the winter of 1944–45, and in May, 1947, when it became know that the housing contract was nearing its end, most active steps were taken by Blackpool Corporation, when asked, to arrange for further use of the factory. Since 1947, many inquiries have been made verbally and by letter, and there have been Parliamentary Questions by my hon. Friend and myself. From time to time local efforts have been made to denigrate the efforts of Blackpool Corporation, my hon. Friend and myself, but in every case these have been frustrated by a simple exposition of the truth. I regret to say that recently, on 10th March, perhaps unfortunately—I am not blaming the Minister for having done this—in view of the municipal elections, these attempts to denigrate Blackpool Corporation's efforts were reinforced by a statement from the Minister. The statement was given in answer to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South.
I should say that the reason why I am speaking on this Adjournment Motion and not the hon. Member for Blackpool, South, is that I was lucky in the ballot and he was not. It would be right to say, I think, that he will agree with anything good I say but will not agree with anything bad that I say. In replying to that supplementary question by my hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade gave as one reason for the factory being empty the fact that the local authority—Blackpool Corporation—were unwilling to consider proposals put before them for finding re-employment in this area some two years ago. In other words, Blackpool Corporation was responsible for the factory being empty.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson): I have never said that.

Mr. Low: I will read the answer again. The right hon. Gentleman said that
the local authority were unwilling to consider proposals put before them for finding


re-employment for this area some two years ago."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1949; Vol. 462, c. 1383.]
A reasonable inference from that is what I have just made—whatever he meant by the statement. Because that statement was so much at variance with the facts, there was some doubt in the minds of my hon. Friend and myself, and the Blackpool Corporation, so I put another Question on Thursday last, 24th March. The right hon. Gentleman said that what he really had in mind was
a resolution passed by the Blackpool Corporation somewhat earlier."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th March, 1949; Vol. 463, c. 533.]
In other words, he was not right about the dates; nor was he right about the fact that there had been any proposals. The right hon. Gentleman really made a slip in order to defend himself, and I hope we are going to hear that it was a slip and that he will apologise and withdraw it. Before I give him the chance of doing that I am going to give him the facts about the attitude of the Corporation. Since he had this fact at the back of his mind, I will start with what happened in the winter of 1944–45.
At that time the late Sir Walter Preston, of Platt Brothers, was in touch with the neighbouring Borough Council of Lytham St. Anne's, about bringing Platt Brothers to Squire's Gate after the war. At no time did Sir Walter ever put any proposals to Blackpool Corporation, even though he was invited to do so. Arising out of certain speculative newspaper reports, the Blackpool Council resolved unanimously, on 3rd January, 1945—I say unanimously because the Council at that time had some Labour Party members—that it
is opposed to the establishment in Blackpool of heavy industries and will use every endeavour to prevent heavy industries coming to the town, but will welcome and assist in the development of any light industries which will not be detrimental to Blackpool as a health and pleasure resort.
A month later—on 7th February—it passed—not unanimously this time—a similar resolution. I cannot believe that the right hon. Gentleman objects to these resolutions. Does he object to the Blackpool Corporation wanting to keep out heavy industries from Britain's greatest and most popular holiday resort? Does he want to exchange the sea air for the smoke and fumes of heavy industry? I cannot really believe that he wants to

do that, but if he does, let me tell him that the people of Blackpool and the fathers of the city do not want to do it. I want to take that point a little further. It is not only a question of heavy industries being unpopular and not in Blackpool's interests, but it is also clear that that kind of industry is wholly unsuitable for the factory itself. The right hon. Gentleman has told me so himself. It is a very high factory, erected for aircraft production. It is costly to heat. The right hon. Gentleman has said that the factory is in fact only suitable for the production of aircraft, aluminium houses, and things of a like nature.
He wrote this to me in a letter dated 10th March, 1948:
The buildings are far too lofty to be acceptable for ordinary production of such things as textiles or textile machinery, both of which have been considered.
That completely and finally disposes of any suggestion that Platt Brothers were the right people to come to Blackpool.
I should like to mention just one other resolution passed by Blackpool Corporation on this subject. That was on 27th June, 1947, when the General Purposes Committee resolved:
That the Council has heard with apprehension that the present contract for the factory at Squires Gate is about to expire; that the Town Clerk be requested to inform the appropriate Government Departments of the Council's fears, and to take every step possible to ensure that further work is allocated to the factory.
The Town Clerk did indeed play his part. He wrote to the Ministry of Supply—the Government Department then most directly concerned—on 5th July, 1947, asking for the fullest information possible as to the future use of this factory, and for an assurance that the change-over would be planned so as to reduce to a minimum the period during which the labour force concerned would not be fully employed. That in itself is a very good example of the fact that he and the Corporation have always been very much alive to the importance of this factory to full employment in Blackpool. The Ministry of Supply, after several prods, managed to reply on 9th March, 1948—eight months later.
In addition, the Town Clerk has directed nine substantial companies which made inquiries about the factory to one or other of the Government


Departments interested. More recently, he and leading members of the Council have been involved in many meetings and discussions with representatives of the Board of Trade and other Departments, and big and important private firms. I believe there is a discussion going on at the present time which is in a most healthful stage, concerning an important and famous firm, and I can only express the hope of us all that this will be successful.
In these circumstances, surely the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw his un-justified charge against the Blackpool Corporation. If he does not think it was an accusation against them, every- body who heard it does, and certainly the Corporation were much concerned and wrote him a letter. I do not know whether he has answered it yet, but if he has not, I hope he will do so immediately after this Debate. The Corporation have co-operated most closely with him, and I hope he will say so, acknowledge it, and thank them.
These are the facts, shortly, and I hope clearly. I have tried to keep out partisan feelings, although I may say that the right hon. Gentleman's statement provoked me when I read it. I have tried to avoid provoking him for fear that we might have something worse. We are all concerned that this factory shall work again as soon as possible. The right hon. Gentleman holds in his hand certain trump cards—he decides what the rent will be, and he directs certain Government departments controlling raw materials and so forth. He is therefore the one man who can help particularly in this matter. I ask not only for a withdrawal, but for a gracious tribute to Blackpool Corporation, and for an assurance that he is doing all he can to hurry up the occupation of this factory.

11.14 p.m.

Mr. Roland Robinson: I am pleased my hon. Friend has had the good fortune to be able to raise this matter tonight. I regard it as vital for our own people in Blackpool, Lytham St. Anne's, and the whole Fylde area. It is a problem I know well. I was born in the town and brought up there. I know the great problems any seaside resort has through seasonal employment, when there

is no other industry in the town. For many years I have hoped that we could establish in our town some suitable industry, which would well fit in with the amenities of a holiday resort, so that the young men and women as they grew up could look forward to some employment year in and year out, and which would not merely keep them occupied during the summer months.
I was therefore very pleased when, through the exigencies of the war, we found at the South end of the town a well-built and useful factory. During the war it gave employment to thousands of people from outside as well as within the town. It was the fervent wish of everyone in the town to see that it continued to provide employment after the war. The Corporation began to raise the matter with the Ministries as early as the end of 1944, because they wanted to be sure of continuity of employment for their people. Employment was provided for a while through the aluminium houses, but since that came to an end that vast factory has been idle, and in what are known as days of full employment we have an oasis of unemployment, with some 4,000 people out of work, in that area. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would feel that we were not doing our duty if we were not always knocking at the door to see what we could do to help these people to get employment. I hope he will take advantage of this short Debate tonight to tell us what hope of employment he can offer to these people. That is our main purpose, to see that the people get work. It is not a matter of party recrimination from either side.
There is the other problem about which I asked a Question in the House some weeks ago. I pointed out that some 4,000 people were out of work and asked the Minister whether, seeing that he had been aware of it for over two years, something could be done. Though at the time, in the heat of the moment, he used the words, "I am not aware of anything of the kind," he must have known that 4,000 people were out of work. He threw out the suggestion that Blackpool Corporation had turned down proposals two years ago. Honestly I do not know what they were. I have followed the whole history of these negotiations, I have records of all that has taken place and I can only assume from the information


I have, or shall I say gossip, that the President of the Board of Trade is perhaps thinking of Platt Brothers, though that is going away back to 1944. As my right hon. Friend has said, no proposal was made by them to the Blackpool Corporation.
We all want to get together and make a success of this factory. I give the Minister credit for good faith and I am sure he as well as us wants to see that factory going. But he is going the wrong way about it. He is not creating the right atmosphere when we have this sort of recrimination thrown out the other day which cast some blame on Blackpool Corporation for turning down proposals, about which the Minister himself seems to have been doubtful. The Corporation have tried their utmost to be helpful. They have already passed on nine proposals to the Ministry of Supply and seven to the Board of Trade and they have assisted with many other proposals that have gone indirectly through Government Departments. Corporation officials have been going backwards and forwards between Blackpool and London for some time now. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will clear the situation and try not to cast blame on people trying to be helpful, so that all will work together to achieve the desired result.

11.18 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson): I am certain from what has been said tonight and in previous discussions that both hon. Gentlemen realise the great difficulties which this problem presents owing especially to the size and nature of the buildings involved. These buildings cover an area of a little under 1,500,000 square feet, of which over one half is concentrated in a single large lofty central building averaging 50 feet in height. Around this is grouped a number of other smaller buildings most of which are almost equally lofty.
In the middle of 1945 Vickers Armstrong Limited, the occupying contractors, told the Board of Trade that they would not be able to vacate the factory at the end of their war production, as expected, but that they intended to retain this factory for some time for the manufacture of aluminium houses, a very suitable use for these premises. In May,

1947, the Ministry of Supply first announced that the aluminium house programme would end early in 1948, and in September of that year they formally told the Board of Trade that the factory was to become surplus and would be available for re-allocation the following April. It was in the knowledge that the manufacture of aluminium houses was a purely temporary programme—and nobody ever expected it to be otherwise—that the Board of Trade has kept this factory in mind in discussions with applications for factory space. The buildings are suitable only for a narrow range of manufacture. They are far too lofty, too expensive to heat, etc., for any type of light manufacture which does not require abnormal head room.
There are difficulties about using them for several types of heavy industry and for textile manufacture. All of us would have been glad to have seen a textile firm established in Blackpool, if it had not been for the unsuitability of these premises. By 1948—I am dealing now with the history of the factory, before coming to the other question—no promising applications for the factory as a whole had been found and the best prospect had been found to be a collection of applications from light engineering firms anxious to obtain small factories of between 10,000 and 50,000 square feet and apparently willing to consider sections of the smaller buildings of the Squires Gate Factory if satisfactory arrangements for servicing and so forth could be made. But investigation showed—and I think the Corporation and the Department were agreed on this—that it would be impossible to convert such a large factory for an industrial trading concern, even if the Government had the power to do so. There was also the question whether between us we could have found a management willing to take it on and be responsible for all these services. I do not want to say too much about the present position because, as the hon. Member who raised this matter tonight has said, preliminary negotiations with a world famous aircraft firm are in progress at the moment, including the problems of making the airfield suitable for modern types of aircraft.
As the two hon. Members both well know, about 200,000 square feet of the factory are to be used for the repair of


Government vehicles, employing 450 men and 50 women. Of course, on this matter the Corporation were consulted, and they welcomed the proposal. I am sure that both hon. Members have appreciated the great difficulties with which the Department has been faced in attempting to find suitable tenants for this factory. As I said to the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Roland Robinson) the Board of Trade has no power to direct private industries into Blackpool or anywhere else. I am certain that neither hon. Members, nor any of the hon. Members of the Party to which they belong, would suggest that the Board of Trade should take such powers. But without such powers I am sure they will realise the great difficulties which the Department is facing.
But to put the blame for these difficulties on the Board of Trade, as the hon. Member for Blackpool, South, did in that supplementary question two and a half weeks ago, was, in my submission, unjustified. When tonight the hon. Member complained about the atmosphere which he thinks I have created, I would suggest to him that the first stone was thrown by him in that quite provocative and unnecessary supplementary question. The suggestion has been made by the hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Low) that the matter has become a matter of municipal politics. I do not know anything about that.

Mr. Low: I said that it might become a matter of municipal politics, not that it has become.

Mr. Wilson: I did not know anything about that, certainly on 10th March. I would like to say clearly that if the suggestion is being made, or implied, that anyone in Blackpool of any party—and I do not want to interfere in the municipal politics of Blackpool, least of all—that hon. Members for Blackpool have been failing in their duty to bring this matter almost eternally and continually before the Government, those who make the suggestion are very wrong indeed. No one has been more importunate in pressing the claims of the municipality than these two hon. Gentlemen. But to put the blame for the difficulties on the Board of Trade, as the hon.

Member for Blackpool, South, did, was unjustified. What he said—and I think that if he will turn up the records he will find that his version tonight was different from what he said on the day—was that the Department had taken two years to make up its mind. Tonight he said that after two years it was time something was done.
Our difficulty is in the absence of power to direct industry, which we do not possess—and I am glad to say that the hon. Member and I both feel that such powers ought not to be taken. We are all of us anxious to solve this problem. The unemployment figure, which is partly due to seasonal factors, is, of course, one of which we are aware and are all concerned about, though I think it is certainly very much lower than it was when the hon Members' party was in office. During many of those years one of the hon. Gentlemen lived in Blackpool.
I come to the question of the attitude of the Blackpool Corporation and the remarks I was provoked into making about them in reply to the supplementary question of the hon. Gentleman. In the first place, I would say that Blackpool Corporation have been extremely helpful over the past year, and indeed since the time when it became clear that the use of these premises for the making of temporary houses was coming to an end. It is true that I made clear in reply to a Question last Thursday that no specific proposals have been made by my Department to the Blackpool Corporation which the Corporation have turned down. The references which I made to the Corporation did in fact relate to the Corporation's attitude when proposals were being worked out for the development of heavy industries in Blackpool. The proposals did not actually materialise because it was decided in 1945, with the goodwill of the Corporation and of the Ministry of Aircraft Production, to have an aircraft factory there for as long as possible in the peace-time period. To quote an official record of the discussion which took place, the Board of Trade was informed that the Corporation:
had been very disturbed about the possibility there seemed to be at one stage that it might be taken over.…for textile machinery manufacture.
But it is equally fair to the Corporation to state that such a proposal was never


formally put to them; equally that no direct opposition was expressed by them to it. At the same time, the Corporation have always made it clear that, while they were anxious to see these buildings developed, to quote their letter:
(i) partly for the development of light industries; (ii) partly for terminal buildings for an airport, the Corporation being already possessed of Parliamentary powers to provide an airport on this land and land adjacent; (iii) partly for use as a bus garage and depot for the Council's transport undertaking; and (iv) partly for use as an exhibition hall.
the Corporation, in the same letter, dated 17th January, 1945, drew the attention of the Department concerned to a resolution passed and quoted by the hon. Gentleman:
That this Council is opposed to the establishment in Blackpool of heavy industries and will use every endeavour to prevent heavy industries coming to the town, but will welcome and assist in the development of any light industries which will not be detrimental to Blackpool as a health and pleasure resort.
The letter went on to say various things which the hon. Gentleman knows.

I am not complaining of the attitude of the Blackpool Corporation. Blackpool is a national asset as a holiday resort. Certainly no Yorkshireman—as I am—could fail to pay tribute to it, and certainly I look forward to spending some more happy hours there myself this Whitsuntide. One can understand the Corporation wishing to preserve its amenities, even to the point of declaring their opposition to the development of heavy industry. But in view of the limiting purposes to which the factory is capable of being put the strong insistence of the Council on further restrictions, by entirely ruling out heavy engineering, etc., and leaving it to light industry—for which it is not really suitable—or for aircraft, has not made the solution of this problem an easy one.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-nine Minutes past Eleven o'Clock.